A[ 

0  ! 
0! 

1  • 

2  ' 
8 

\l 

3 

!  6 


UNIVERSITY  OF 
AT    LOS 


3F  CALIFORNIA 
ANGELES 


THE  CIVIL  LAW  AND 
THE  CHURCH 


By 

CHARLES    Z.    LINCOLN 

Legal  Advi»er  to  Governors  Morton,  Black,  and  Roosevelt,  of  New  York. 

Author    of    ConHlitutiiinul    History    of    New     York     and 

The  FundameutaU  of  American  Government. 


THE    ABINGDON    PRESS 

NEW  YORK  CINCINNATI 


Copyright.  1916,  by 
CHARLES   Z.    LINCOLN 


-ir- 


3V 


PREFACE 

In  the  summer  of  1008,  while  I  was  livinj?  in  Albany,  New 
York,  1  was  asked  for  an  opinion  as  to  the  powers  of  church 
trustees  under  specified  conditions.  In  my  studies  for  the 
]»nrpose  of  i)rej)aring  an  opinion  on  the  question  subniitto<l, 
1  experienced  sonie  difficulty  in  discovering!:  judicial  decisions 
in  which  the  question  had  been  considered.  One  result  of 
my  researches  was  the  conviction  that  there  ought  to  be  a 
book  in  which  might  be  collected  the  princii)al  judicial  de- 
cisions affecting  church  problems.  I  thought  that  in  such 
a  book  the  reader  should  be  able  to  find  under  a  convenient 
arrangement  most  of  the  cases  which  present  judicial  decla- 
rations on  religious  questions,  without  being  obliged  to  ex- 
amine legal  digests  and  reports  covering  general  topics. 
This  book  is  the  product  of  my  consideration  of  that  subject. 
I  have  here  sought  to  gather  in  one  volume  the  principal  ju- 
dicial decisions  rendered  by  the  courts  of  Great  Britain, 
Canada,  and  the  United  States,  including  Federal  and  State 
Courts,  in  which  have  been  considered  questions  relating  to 
distinctively  religious  matters,  and  also  questions  affecting 
local  religious  societies.  The  book  embodies  the  result  of  a 
study  of  the  decisions  which  are  now  scattered  through  a 
,  large  luunber  of  reports  of  cases  and  digests,  and  which  are 
^  here  i)laced  in  a  form  convenient  for  immediate  reference. 
^  It  is  not  a  text-book  in  the  ordinary  sense,  but  is  instead  a 
'  digest  or  cyclopedia.  Many  delicate  and  important  ques- 
-^  tions  have  been  considered  by  the  courts,  and  I  assume  that 
'  the  reader  would  prefer  the  language  of  the  court  rather 
than  a  statement  of  the  decision  from  my  own  point  of  view. 
The  reader  would  probably  prefer  to  know  what  the  court 
said,  rather  than  what  I  think  the  court  said;  so  the  work 
is  not  an  attemjtted  interpretation  of  judicial  decisions,  but 
a  statement  of  the  decisions  as  actuallv  rendered. 


430506 


iv  I'KIll'ACK 

'I'lic  lu|iics  iii'c  ;irraii}^<'<l  in  cvclopcdic  foi-in,  witli  n  sul)- 
ordiiiiilc  alpliabotical  cliissiticalion.  This  arrangement  has 
been  can-icd  as  far  as  scciiumI  piacticable  in  a  book  of  this 
kind,  but  in  addition  lo  this  ( lassilication  I  have  jn'cpared 
an  index  in  which  I  iiave  sought  to  jiresent  in  detail  nnnier- 
«»ns  items  wliicli  «<»nid  not  readily  be  classified  in  the  cyclo- 
jtedic  arrangement.  So  far  as  I  am  aware,  no  attemj>t  has 
heretofore  been  made  to  collect  and  present  in  this  form  the 
decisions  covering  this  important  field  of  judicial  inquiry. 

DbNO.M  I. NATIONAL  ARTICLES 

In  prei)aring  this  work  I  found  so  many  decisions  relat- 
ing to  particular  denominations  that  I  concluded  to  arrange 
these  in  separate  groups  under  the  names  of  the  respective 
denominations.  Ivich  topic  of  this  class  is  believed  to  pre- 
sent the  principal  judicial  decisions  relating  to  the  particu- 
lar denomination,  so  far  especially  as  the  questions  involved 
are  distinctive  and  peculiar  to  that  denomination;  but  it 
should  be  observed  that  not  all  denominational  cases  are 
]»resented  in  this  book.  At  the  outset  of  my  studies  I 
thought  a  comprehensive  list  of  such  cases  might  be  prac- 
ticable, and  I  collected  the  cases  for  this  purpose,  but  so 
many  of  them  were  found  to  be  of  merelj'^  local  interest, 
l>resenting  nothing  new,  that  I  concluded  to  omit  decisions 
involving  only  factional  controversies  and  in  which  the  rule 
declared  was  only  a  repetition  of  well-established  legal 
principles. 

Local  Statutes 

I  have  in  this  book  attempted  to  present  a  view^  of  decisions 
relating  to  the  application  of  the  civil  law  to  the  solution  of 
general  questions  affecting  the  church.  It  has  seemed  im- 
practicable to  consider  in  detail  decisions  which  relate  only 
to  particular  local  statutes,  and,  accordingly,  I  have  for  the 
most  part  omitted  cases  merely  construing  statutes  of  that 
class,  assujuing  that  a  student  interested  in  such  a  statute 


PREFACE  V 

will  examine  the  decisious  of  the  parlicular  state  or  coun- 
try in  which  the  statute  was  enacted,  for  a  judicial  interpre- 
tation of  it.  My  examination  of  judicial  decisions  to  be  in- 
cluded in  this  book  closed  on  the  first  of  July,  1915. 

Personal 

For  the  last  fifteen  years  I  have  been  unable  to  use  ray 
own  eyes  in  this  kind  of  work,  and  consequently  have  been 
and  am  now  (le])endcnt  on  readers,  stenographers,  librarians, 
and  others  in  collecting  materials  supposed  to  be  needed  in 
pursuing  my  literary  studies,  and  also  in  all  other  work 
involving  the  u.se  of  eyesight.  It  has  been  my  custom  to 
listen  to  the  reading  of  books  and  other  forms  of  literature 
bearing  on  the  topic  under  consideration,  and  dictate  to  a 
stenograi)her  the  matter  intendetl  to  be  used,  including  ex- 
tracts, original  notes,  and  general  discussions.  The  value 
of  the  service  1  have  received  from  those  who  have  aided  me 
in  my  work  cannot  be  measured.  It  has  made  })()ssible  tlie 
accomplishment  of  results  which  might  not  otherwise  have 
been  reached.  When  in  1908  this  book  was  conceived,  I 
was  engaged  in  prei)aring  an  annotated  edition  of  the  Mes- 
sages of  the  Governors  of  New  York,  Avhich  edition  was 
published  the  next  year.  I  began  my  studies  for  the  i)resent 
volume  early  in  the  autumn  of  1909,  and  s]>ent  the  winter 
of  1909-10  searching  for  materials,  using  for  this  purpose 
the  rich  resources  of  the  New  York  State  library  at  Albany, 
and  I  was  assisted  in  my  researches  by  Mr.  Frederick  ]). 
Colson,  then  law  librarian  of  the  State  Library,  who  not 
only  gave  me  the  freedom  of  the  libra i-y,  but  atVonled  me 
special  facilities  foi-  pursuing  my  studies  by  enabling  me  to 
occupy  a  corner  <tf  the  libi-ary  where  books  might  be  ex- 
amined, and  read  ahuid  to  me  withctut  disturbing  other 
persons  using  the  library.  Here  I  compiled  a  large  number 
of  notes  bearing  on  my  ])lan.  In  this  ])i-ep;ualion  I  was 
assisted  by  my  reader  and  stenograpliei-,  Miss  Marguei-ite 
Elizabeth  (Jrillin,  of  Albany,  New  York,  who  had  rendered 


vi  IMnOFACK 

siniihir  service  dnriii;^  the  idcccUin;;  nine  years.  I  take  thiH 
opportunity  to  express  my  apijrecijition  of  her  enitiency,  not 
only  in  this  service  but  also  in  tlic  jncitai-alion  of  ftrevions 
]inl)licat  ions. 

In  the  spring  of  1010  I  changed  my  residence  from  Albany 
lo  Knlfalo,  an<l  afterward  with  some  interru[)tions,  1  con- 
tinued my  study  in  the  Law  Library  of  the  lOighth  Judicial 
District,  at  Buffalo,  New  York.  The  librarian,  Mr.  (Jeorge 
I).  Ci'ofts,  extend(Ml  to  me  numerous  courtesies  while  I  was 
using  the  library.  The  assistant  librarian,  Miss  Katherine 
L.  Cuthbert,  rendered  valuable  service  by  her  aid  in  search- 
ing for  judicial  decisions.  I  take  this  occasion  to  express  my 
acknowledgments  to  Mr.  Crofts  and  to  Miss  Cuthbert  for 
their  assistance  in  the  performance  of  my  task. 

Beginning  in  1J)1;^>,  my  study  has  been  carried  forward 
without  serious  interrui)tions.  Man}'  parts  of  the  work  have 
been  considerably'  expanded  beyond  the  original  plan,  re- 
quiring new  notes  and  the  examination  of  additional  au- 
thorities. In  this  work  I  have  been  assisted  by  my  i)reseut 
reader  and  stenographer,  Miss  Elsie  Kramer  of  Buffalo, 
New  York,  and  I  hereby  express  my  cordial  appreciation  of 
the  faithfulness  and  accuracy  applied  by  her  in  working 
out  her  part  in  the  preparation  of  this  volume. 

Buffalo,  New  York,  March  1,  191G.  C.  Z.  L. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Actions 1 

African  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 21 

American  Home  Missionary  Society 22 

Arbitration 23 

Articles  of  Religion 24 

Associate  Reformed  Church 25 

Baptist  Church 30 

Bells 39 

Bible 41 

Bishop 47 

Blasphemy 49 

Campbellites .' 51 

Camp  Meetings 54 

Cemetery 58 

Chapel 67 

Charitable  Use 6S 

Charity 83 

Christian  Church 92 

Christianity 97 

Christian  Missionary  Society 102 

Christian  Science 103 

Church 106 

Church  Edifice 119 

Church  of  England 120 

Church  of  God  at  Harrisburg 124 

Churchwardens 126 

Civil  Courts 127 

Community  Societies 167 

Confession  of  Faith 176 

Con(;re(;ation 177 

CoNGRECiATIONAL  ChURCH 179 

Conscience 187 

Constitution 189 

Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church 190 

Deacons 196 

Denomination 197 

Disciples  op  Christ 198 

Dissenters 199 

vii 


viii  <'()N'I'I:NTS 

I'AGK 

DiHTiTRHiNO  Reuoious  Meetino 20() 

D()(TKINE 21o 

DoWIEIHM 216 

DUNKERS 217 

Ecclesiastical  Council 219 

Ecclesiastical  C'ochts 221 

Ecclesiastical  Law 232 

Elections 233 

Evangelical  Association 241 

Evangelical  Lutheran 249 

Free  Baptist  ('hurch 250 

Free  Church  of  Scotland 252 

Friends 255 

Friendship  Lihehal  League 268 

German  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church 269 

German  Evangelical  Synod  of  North  America 271 

German  Reformed  Church 273 

German  Society 276 

Gospel 277 

Greek  Church 278 

Guardian 280 

Independents 282 

Injunction 283 

Jews 293 

Libel 295 

Lutherans 297 

Mandamus 308 

Masses 313 

Meetings 314 

Members 317 

Mennonites 329 

Methodist  Church  of  Canada 331 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church 333 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South 359 

Methodist  Protestant  Church 370 

Ministers 372 

Missions 403 

Mormons 406 

Mortgage 416 

Mortmain 420 

Municipal  Ordinances 421 

Music 422 

New  Thought  Church 424 

Norwegian  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church 425 


CONTENTS  ix 

PAGE 

Nuisance 429 

Oath 430 

Officers 431 

Parish 433 

Parsonage 441 

Particular  Baptist  Church 444 

Partition 445 

Pews 446 

Pious  Uses 407 

Prayers  for  the  Dead 470 

Presbyterian  Church 480 

Primitive  Baptist  Church 515 

Primitive  Methodist  Church 516 

Profanity 519 

Property 520 

Protestant 545 

Protestant  Episcopal  Church 548 

Quo  Warranto 574 

Reformed  Church 575 

Reformed  Dutch  Church 578 

Reformed  Presbyterian  Church 587 

Religion 589 

Religious  Belief 597 

Religious  Corporations 598 

Religious  Establishment 617 

Religious  Freedom 618 

Religious  Garb 626 

Religious  Principles 627 

Religious  .Societies 628 

Religious  Toleration 647 

Religious  Worship 651 

Roman  Catholic  Church 657 

Salvation  Army 690 

Schism 093 

Schoolhouse 094 

Secession 695 

Sectarian  Institution 708 

Sectarian  Instruction 710 

Shakers 719 

Slander 727 

Spiritual  and  Philosophical  Temple 728 

Spiritualists 729 

Subscription 731 

Sunday 743 


X  CONTIiNTS 

PAfJK 

Sunday  School 7S9 

Si'i'KRSTiTious  Uhe 79() 

SWKDKNHOUGIANS 792 

Taxation l^J'.i 

Town 800 

Treasurer 803 

Trustees 805 

Trusts 824 

Unincorporated  Society 844 

Unitarians 847 

United  Brethren  in  Christ 852 

Ignited  Presbyterian  Church 864 

ITniversalist 865 

Voters 868 

Wesleyan  Methodist 874 

Will 876 

Winebrennerians 894 

Witness 895 

Young  Men's  Christian  Association 905 


TABLE  OF  CASES 

Abernethy  v  Society  of  the  Church 

of  the  Puritans 3  Daly  (N.  Y.)  1 .  .  .  .453,  455,  465,  465 

Abyssinian  Baptist  Ch.,  Re 13  N.  Y.  Supp.  919 640 

Ackley  v  Irwin 71  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  239 381,  557,  562 

Ada  St.  Methodist  Epis.  Chui-ch  v 

Garnsey 66  111.  132 18,  807 

Adair  v  State 134  Ala.  183 206,  653 

Adams  v  Gay 19  Vt.  358 756 

Adams  v  Howe 14  Mass.  340 622,  795,  795,  844 

Adams  v  Rusch 2  Str.  (Eng.)  1133 126,  229 

Adey  v  Theobald 1  Ciu-teis  (Eng.)  373 123,  267 

Adnam  v  Cole 6  Beav.  (EngT)  353 422 

African  Baptist  Church  v  White.  .   24  Ky.  L.  R.  646 234,  812 

African  Methodist  Bethel  Church, 

Baltimore  v  Carmack 2  Md.  Ch.  143 4,  4,  616,  809 

African    Meth.    Episcopal    Ch.    v 

Clark ;•••;■■. 25  La.  Ann.  282 21,  141 

Mrican  Methodist  Epis  c  opal 

Church  V  New  Orleans 15  La.  Ann.  441 21,  649 

African  Meth.  Epis.  Union 

Church,  Re 28  Pa.  Sup.  Ct.  193 21,  599 

Aitken  Estate,  Re 158  Pa.  541 792 

Alden  v  St.  Peter's  Parish,  Syca- 
more      158  111.  631 81,  844 

Alderman  v  Phelps 15  Mass.  225 761 

Alexander  v  Bowers 79  S.  W.  (Tex.)  342 132,  226 

Alexander  v  Slavens 7  B.  Men.  (Ky.)  351 830 

Alexander    Presbyterian    Church, 

Philadelphia .  . ". 30  Pa.  St.  154 531 

All™  V  Deming 14  N.  H.  133 776 

Allen  V  Duffie 43  Mich.  1 610,  739,  778 

Allen  V  North  Des  Moines  Meth. 

Epis.  Chu 127  la.  96 603,  610,  635 

M  Saints  Church  v  Lovett 1  Hall's  Sup.  Ct.  195 604,  810 

Alna,  Inhabitants  of,  v  Plummer.   3  Me.  88 439,  801 

Alton   Bav  Camp  Meeting  Asso- 
ciation V  Alton 69  N.  H.  311 55 

American  Bible  Society  v  Noble.  .    11  Rich.  Eq.  (S.  C.)  156,  175 420 

American  Bible  Society  v  Wetmore  17  Conn.  181 881 

American     Primitive     Society     v 

Pilling 4  Zab.  (N.  J.)  653 

236,  517,  633,  696,  813,  820,  870 
American  Sunday  School  Union  v 

Philadelphia 161  Pa.  St.  307 793 

American  l^ract  Society  v  At  water.  30  Ohio  St.  77 887 

American  Tract  Society  v  Purdy 

Executors 3  Iloust.  (Del.)  625 420 


xii  TAUIJ;  Ol'^  CASEH 

AtiM'shiirv  Niiil  I'Jiclorv  ( 'otiipunv 

V  \V<H-<I         " ".    17  Miuss.  fA 798 

Ainish  (>l  ill  V  (Irlhaiis,  el  ul 71  I:i.  170 737,  740 

Aiulcison  V  lin.ck 3  Mc.243.  IG,  1(K),  180,547,600,650,721 

Amlcisoii  V  WCiliiiiilon 40  Kan.  173 421,  6!il 

Aiulnw    V    New    \  ork    Bible   and 

I'nivcr  liook  Society 4  Sanclf.  (N.  Y.)  181 80 

AiioiiyiMouH 2  Hill  (N.  Y.)  375 7.56,  765 

Aiioiiyinous Fed.  Ca.s.  No.  446 895 

Antones  ot  al  v  Kslava's  Heirs.  .  .   9  Port  (Ala.)  527 20,  523,  687,  816 

.\iilriin  V  Mal.sbui y.  . 43  N.  J.  Eq.  288 60 

.Vpo.-^tolic   Il()liiic.s.-<  Union  of  Po.st 

VMs  V  Knudson 21  Idaho  589 525 

Api)  V  Liithcnui  Cong 6  Pa.  St.  201 701 

Aihucklc  V  Reaume 96  Mich.  243 777 

Archer  v  Sweet  nam Fort.  (Eng.)  34() 460 

Arden,  Matter  of 20  St.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  865 606,  637 

Argar  v  Holdsworth 2  Lee  (Eng.)  224 120 

Arnd  v  Amling 53  Md.  192 902 

Arnold  v  Arnold 13  Vt.  363 430,  901,  902 

Arthur  v  Xorheld  Cong.  Church  .  .    73  Conn.  718 183,  374.  401,  751 

Arts  V  Cuthrie 75  la.  674 706 

Ash  V  Methodist  Ch 27  Ont.  App.  Re.  602 155,  332 

Ashby  V  ^^•ellington 8  Pick.  (Mass.)  524 440,  802 

Aspell  V  Hosbein 98  Mich.  117 779 

Associate  Presbyterian  Cong.,  He- 
bron V  Banna 113  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  12 615 

Associate     Reformed     Church     v 
Trustees  Theological  Seminary, 

Princeton 4  N.  J.  Eq.  77 27,  27,  29,  838 

Association  for  the  Benefit  of  Col- 
ored Orj)hans  in  New  Y'ork  v 

New  York 104  X.  Y.  581 653 

Atcheson  v  Everitt 1  Cowper  (Eng.)  382 265,  900 

Atkinson  v  Bell 18  Tex.  474 523 

Attorney    General    v    Bishop    of 

Chester 1  Bro.  C.  Cases  (Eng.)  444 47, 877 

Attorney    General    v    Bishop    of 

Oxford 1  Bro.  C.  C.  (Eng.)  444  n 831 

Attorney  General  v  Boultbee ....   2  Ves.  (Eng.)  Jr.  380 86 

Attorney  General  v  Calvert 23  Bcav.  (Eng.)  258 72 

Attorney  General  v  Christie 13  Grant's  Ch.  (Can.)  495 253 

Attorney  General  ex  rel  Independ- 
ent or  Congreg.  Church  of  Wap- 

petaw  V  Clergy  Society 8  Rich  Eq.  (S.  C.)  190,  10  Rich  Eq. 

(S.  C.)  604 84 

Attorney  General  v  Cock 2  Ves  Sen.  (Eng.)  273 33 

Atforn(>v  General  v  Delaney Ir.  10  C.  L.  104.  121 477 

Attorney  General  v  Drummond...   3  Dru.  &  War.  (Eng.)  162.  .97,  396,  546 
Attorney  General  ex  rel  Abbot  v 

Dublin. 38N.H.459.  .73,180,215,376,377,706 

Attorney  General  ex  rel  Marselus 
V  Dutch  Reformed  Church,  New 

York 36  N.  Y.  452 398 

.Attorney  General  v  Fishmongers 
Company 2  Bcav.  (Eng.)  151 478 


TABLE  OF  CASES  xiii 

Attorney  General  ox  lel  Ter  Vreo  v 

Geerlings 55  Mi(;h.  562 149,  196 

Attorney  General  v  (Gladstone.  .  .    13  Sim.  (Eng.)  7 883 

Attorney  General  v  (Juisc 2  Vern.  (Enf?)  266 88 

Attorney  General  v  Hall 2  Irish  R.  291,  309  (1896) 

86,117,122,477,479.592 

Attornej'  General  v  Ilerrick Anib.  (Eng.)  712 74 

Attorney  General  v  Jolly 1  Rich  Eq.  (S.  C.)  99 .  .  .79,  81,  89,  832 

Attorney  General  v  Lawes 8  Hare  (Eng.)  32 •.  .  87 

Attorney  General  v  Matthew.  ...    3  Rus.s.  (Eng.)  500 238 

Attorney  General  ex  rel  Bailey  v 

Moore's  Executors 18  N.  J.  Eq. 256, 19  N.J. Eq. 503.  77,888 

Attorney  General  v  Old  South  So- 
ciety in  Boston 13  Allen  (Ma.ss.)  474 88,  90,  815 

Attorney  General  v  Parker 3  Atk.  (Eng.)  576 439 

Attorney  General  v  Pearson 3  Meiv.  (Eng.)  353 843 

Attorney  General  v  Power 1  Ball  &  B.  Rep.  (Jr.)  145 47 

Attorney  General  v  Proprietors  of 

Meeting  House  in  Federal  8t .  .    3  Gray  (Mass.)  58.  .  .  163,  178,  436, 

458,  505,  534,  630,  643,  652,  799,  842 

Attorney  General  v  Smithies 1  Keen  (Eng.)  289 127 

Attorney  General  v  Stei)ney 10  Ves.  Jr.  (Eng.)  21 887 

Attorney  General  v  Stewart 2  Merv.  (Eng.)  143 420 

At  torney  General  v  Union  Society, 

Worcester 116  Mass.  167 833 

Attorney  General  v  Wallace 7  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  611 277,  830 

Attorney  General  v  Wilson 16  Sim.  (Eng.)  210 85 

Atwater  v  Woodbridg(> 6  Conn.  223 796 

Atwood  V  Welton 7  Conn.  66 900 

Auburn   Theological    Seminary    v 

Childs ...'....   4  Paige  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  419 826 

Auburn   Theological   Seminary    v 

Kellogg : .  .  .    16  N.  Y.  83 876 

Auburn  v  Y.  M.  C.  A.,  Auburn .  ,    86  Me.  244 799,  <K)6 

Auch's  Succiession 39  La.  Ann.  1043 469 

Auracher  v  Yerger 90  Iowa  558 135,  243 

Austin  V  Thomas 14  Mass.  338 433,  439 

Avery  v  Baker 27  Neb.  388 643 

Avery  v  Stewart 2  Conn.  69 776 

Avery  v  Tyringham 3  Mass.  Re.  182 219,  401 

Aylward  v  O'Brien 160  Mass.  118 463,  659 

Ayres  v  'IVustees  Meth.  Episcopal 

Chu.  N.  Y 3  Sandf.  Sup.  Ct.  (N.  Y.)  351 .  . .  .636 

Ayres  v  Wc^ed 16  Conn.  291 885 

Backes,  Matter  of 9  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  504 473 

Bailey  v  Lewis 3  Day  (Conn.)  450 635 

Bailey  v  Methodist  Epis.  Church, 

FreeF)ort 71  Me.  472 817 

Bailey  v  Trustees,   Power  Street 

Meth.  Epis.  Chiu-ch 6  R.  I.  491 465 

Bailey  v  Wells 82  la.  131 KM) 

Baker  v  Commonwealth 5  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  10 752 

Baker  v  Ducker 79  Cal.  365 576,  69(5 

Baker  v  Fales 16  Mass.  488 108,  377,  703,  704 

Bak«>r  v  Lukens 35  Pa.  St .  146 788 

Baker  et  al  v  Nachtrieb 19  How.  (U.  S.)  126 170 


xiv  'I'AIILi:  or  CASES 

Hiikcr  V  Sutton 1  Keen  (EnR.)  224 8.'> 

Baldwin  v  iMnst  M.  K.  Church. .  .  79  Wash.  578 10 

lialdwin  v   First    Parish  in   I'"itch- 

hurn 8  rick.  (Mji-ss.)  494 4:iS 

lialdwin  v  McClinch 1  Mc.  102 399 

Ball  V  State 67  Mi.ss.  358 2O.0 

Baltzcll  V  Church  Home  and  In- 

firniarv.  Baltimore 110  Md.  244 549,612 

lianas  vSnow 1  M:i.s.s.  181 439 

Banist(T  v  Thompson 24  T.  L.  11.  (Eng.)  841 122 

Bank  of  Cumberland  v  Mayborry  48  Me.  198 774 

Banks  v  Bhclan 4  Barb.  (X.  Y.)  80 74,  893 

Banner  v  Rolf 43  Tex.  Civ,  App.  88 75 

Baptist  Church,  Hartford  v  With- 

erell 3  Paige  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  296 

107,  137,  229,  374,  4.50,  .544,  608,  635 

Baptist  Cong,  v  Scamiel 3  Grant's  Cas.  (Pa.)  48 286,  822 

Baptist  Society,  Wilton  v  Wilton.  2  N.  H.  508 529 

Bardin  v  Calcott 1  Hagg.  Consist.  Re.  (Eng.)  309. .  .   65 

Barhyte  v  Shepherd 35  N.  Y.  238 796 

Barkiey  v  Donnelly 112  Mo.  561 877 

Barkley  v  Hayes .'. 208  F.  (Mo.)  319 195 

Barline  v  Ramirez 7  Philippines  41 677  (2) 

Barnard  v  Whipple 29  Vt.  401 466 

Barnes  v  First  Parish,  Falmouth. .  6  Mass.  401 10,  99,  655 

Barnes   &    others    Trustees    First 

Presbyterian  Ch.,  Glens  Falls  v 

Perine 9  Barb  (N.  Y'.)  202 736 

Barnes  v  Shore 1  Rob.  Eccles.  Rep.  (Eng.)  382.  .  .  177 

Barnett,  Re 29  (38  Pt.  1)  L.  J.Ch.  (Eng.) 871 .82,893 

Barrett  v  Allen 10  Ohio  426 775 

Barrs  v  Jackson 1  PhilHps  Ch.  (Eng.)  582 136 

Barry,  Matter  of 164  N.  Y.  18 688 

Barry  v  Order  of  Catholic  Knights, 

Wis 119  Wis.  362 320,  667 

Bartholomew  v  Lutheran  Congre- 
gation    35  Ohio  567 646 

Bardett,  Petitioner 163  Mass.  509 71 

Bartlett  v  Hipkins 76  Md.  5 47,  122,  549,  561 

Bartlett  v  King 12  Ma-ss.  537 469 

Barton  v  Erickson 14  Neb.  164 0 

Barton  v  Fitzpatrick 65  So.  (Ala.)  390 310 

Bascom  v  Lane Fed.  Cas.  1089  (Cir.  Ct.  Dis.  N.  Y.). 

331,334,341,345,363 

Bates  V  Houston 66  Ga.  198 34,  165.  701,  817 

Bates  V  Sparrell 10  Ma.ss.  323 462 

Batsford  y  Eyery 44  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  618 780 

Batterson  y  Thompson 8  Phila.  (Pa.),  251 138,  287 

Battiscombe  y  Eye 9  Jiir.  N.  S.  (Eng.)  210 229 

Ba.\ter  y  Langley 38  L.  J.  Mag.  Co.  (N.  S.)  (Eng.)  1 .  .746 

Ba.xter  v  McDonnell 155  N.  Y.  83 

129, 152,  661,  663,  678,  827 

Bayberry  v  Mead SO  Me.  27 460 

Beach  y  Allen 7  Hun.  (N.  Y.)  441 540 

Beachem  y  Portsmouth  Bridge.  . .  68  N.  H.  382 762 

Beall  y  Surviving  Ex'rs.  of  Fox.  .  4  Ga.  404 73 


TABLE  OF  CASES  xv 

Beam  v  First  Meth.  Epis.  Church .  3  Pa.  L.  J.  Rep.  343. .  8,  63, 113,  596,  613 
Bean  v  Christian  Church,  South 

Danbury 61  N.  H.  260 96,  616 

Bear  v  Heasley 98  Mich.  279 

136,  165,  229,  630,  853,  860 

Beardsly  v  Foot 2  Root  (Conn.)  399 895 

Beaver  v  FiLson 8  Pa.  St.  327 492,  829 

Beckett  v  Lawrence 7  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  403.  .  .212,  569 

Beckwith  v  McBride  &  Co 70  Ga.  642 .     5 

Beckwith     v     Rector,     etc.,     St. 

Philip's  Parish 69  Ga.  564 79,  566 

Begbie  v  Levi 1  Crompt.  &  J(t.  (Eng.)  180 750 

Bell  V  Graham 1  Nott  &  McG.  (S.  C.)  168 211 

Bellport  Parish  v  Tooker 29  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  256 

600,  615,  630,  835 

Beman  v  Wessels 53  Mich.  549 775 

Benedict  v  Bachelder 24  Mich.  425 778 

Bennett  v  Brooks 9  Allen  (Mass.)  118 788 

Bennett  v  Morgan 112  Ky.  512 148,  154,  215 

Bennett  v  State 1  Swan  (Tenn.)  411 903 

Benson  v  Drake 55  Me.  555 776 

Benziger  v  Steinhauser 154  Fed.  151 173 

Beresford  v  Jervis 11  Jr.  L.  T.  R.  128 476 

Berrian  v  Methodist  Society,  New 

York 4  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  424 18,431 

Berry  v  Clary 77  Me.  482 783 

Berryman  v  Reese 11  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  287 532,  638 

Bethany  Cong.  Ch.  v  Morse 151  Iowa  521 150 

Bice  V  State 109  Ga.  117 210 

Bigelow  V  Congregational  Society, 

Middletown 11  Vt.  283 119,  325,  641 

Billiard    v    Board    of    Education, 

Topeka 69  Kan.  53 713 

Bird  v  Merklee 144  N.  Y.  544 350 

Bird     v     St.     Mark's     Church, 

Waterloo 62  la.  567 ...  48,  140,  440,  553,  560,  561 

Bisbee  v  Evans 4  Me.  374 394,  438 

Biscoe  v  Thweatt 74  .Vrk.  545 81 

Bishop  v  Stone 1  Hagg.  Con.  Re.  (Eng.)  424 24 

Blair  v  Odin 3  Tex.  Rep.  288 674,  687,  688 

Blair  v  Seaver 26  Pa.  274 903 

Blanc  V  Alsbury 63  Tex.  489 663 

Blass  V  Anderson 57  ;Vrk.  483 753 

Blenon's  Estate,  Re Brightly  N.  P.  (Pa.)  338 70 

Bhcm  V  Schultz 170  Pa.'  563 374 

Bliss  V  American  Bible  Society.  .  .  2  Allen  (Mass.)  334 339,  829 

Block  V  McMurray 56  Miss.  217 780 

Blocker  v  Burno.ss 2  Ala.  (N.  S.)  354 S9!) 

Bloom  v  Richards 2  Ohio  St.  387 100,  765,  780 

Blount  v  Viditz 1  Ir.  R.  42  (Ireland)  (1895) 80,  471 

Bloxsome  v  Williams 3  Barn.  &  Cre.  (Eng.)  232 779 

Blundoll's  Tru.sts,  Re.  . 30  Beav.  (Eng.)  360 474,  477 

Board  of  C^hurch  Erection  Fund, 

General  A.'^senibly  Pres.  Church, 

llnited  States  of  .America  v  First 

Presbyterian  Churcli,  Seattle.  .  .  19  Wiush.  455 410 


xvi  TAHLIO  ()I-^  (ASKS 

Hoard  of  Education  of  Cincinnati 

V  Minor 23  Ohio  St.  211 715 

Hoard  of  lOduciition  Normal  Schof)! 
District  v  Trustees,  First  Bap- 
tist Ch.,  Normal 63  111.  204 536 

Hoard  of  Foreign  Missions  of  the 
Presbyterian     Church     v     Mc- 

Miuster Fed.  Ca-ses  No.  1,586  (Cir.  Ct.  Md.) 

497,  83r) 

Hoard  of  Street  Opening,  He 133  N.  Y.  329 64 

Hohl  V  State 3  Tex.  Ct.  App.  683 783 

Honaeum  v  HaiTington 65  Neb.  831 129  (2),  230,  291,  661 

Honaeum  v  Murphy 71  Neb.  463  (487) .  .  .130,  131,  661,  675 

lionham  y  Harris.  ! 145  S.  W.  169 525 

Hooth  V  Baptist  C'hurch  of  Christ, 

Pouphkeepsie 126  N.  Y.  215 877 

Borders  y  Stale ()6  S.  W.  (Texas)  1102 762 

Hose  y  Christ 193  Pa.  St.  13 697 

Bourhier  y  Taylor 4  B.  P.  C.  (Eng.)  708 136 

Bouldin  v  Alexander 15  Wall  (U.  S.)   131 

34   154   696  821 

Boutell  V  Cowdin 9  Mass.  2.54 ' '. '.183 

Bow  V  Parsons 1  Root  (Conn.)  481 899 

Bowden  y  McLeod 1  Edw.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  588 159,  832 

Bowen  v  Irish  Presby.  Cong.  N.  Y.  6  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  245 16,  522 

Bowman  y   Domestic  &   Foreign 

Missionary  Society 182  N.  Y.  494 75 

Boxwell  y  Affleck 79  Va.  402 336 

Boyce  y  Cliristian 69  Mo.  492 878 

Boyles  v  Roberts 222  Mo.  613 

115,  117,  176,  189, 191, 193, 195,  693 

Boynton  y  Page 13  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  425 757,  773 

Bradbury  y  Cary 5  Me.  339 610 

Bradfield  y  Roberts 175  U.  S.  291 683 

Bradshaw  y  Jackman 21  L.  R.  Ir.  12 474 

Brainard  y  Colchester 31  Conn.  407 543 

Brannigan  y  Murphy 1  Ir.  Rep.  418  (1896) 76,  477 

Breeks  y  Woolfrey 1  Curteis  (Eng.)  509 476 

Brennan  v  Brennan Ir.  Rep.  2  Eq.  321 473 

Brewster  y  Hendershot 27  Ont.  App.  232 707,  853 

Brewster  y  McCall's  Ex'rs 15  Conn.  274 405,  880,  881 

Brick  Pre-sby.  Ch.,  Re 3  Edw.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  155.  .  .65,  448,  538 

Brick  Presbyterian  Church  v  New 

York 5  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  538 65,  538 

Bridges  y  Bridges 93  Me.  557 784 

Bridges  y  Pleasants 4  Iredell's  Eq.  (N.  C.)  26 404 

Bridges  y  \\'ilson 11  Heisk,  (Tenn.)  458 158,  228 

Bristor  y  Burr 120  N.  Y.  427 397,  442,  823 

Broad  Street,  Sewickley  Methodist 

Episcopal  Ch 165  Pa.  St.  475 798 

Broadway  Christian  Ch.  v  Com- 
monwealth     23  Kv.  (Part  11)  1695 797 

Brock  y  Milligan 10  Ohio  121 897 

Brockway  y  Allen 17  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  40 14 

Bronson  y  St.  Peter's  Ch.,  Auburn.  7  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.  361 452 

Bronson  y  Strouse 57  Conn.  147 293,  837 


TABLE  OF  CASES  xvii 

Brooke    v    Shacklett,    (Carter    v 

Wolfe) 13  Gratt.  (Va.)  300 323,  338,  342 

Brooklyn  v  Toynbee 31  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  282 763 

Brothers  of  the  order  of  Hermits  of 

St.    Augustine    v    Philadelphia 

County 4  Clark  (Pa.),  124,  Brightly  N.  P. 

116 533 

Browers  v  Fromm Add.  Pa.  Rep.  362 476 

Brown  v  Clark 102  Texas  323 143,  191,  195 

Brown  v  Kelsey 2  Cush.  (Mass.)  243 78 

Brown  v  Lutheran  Ch 23  Pa.  St.  495 641,  831 

Brown  v  Monroe SO  Ky.  443 367,  702 

Brown  v  Porter 10  Mass.  93 394 

Brown  v  State 46  Ala.  175 203 

Brown  v  Thompkins .   49  Md.  423 404,  554 

Bruce  v  Central  Methodist  Epis- 

co{)al  C^hurch 147  Mich.  230 608 

Brunifitl  v  Roberts L.  R.  5  Com.  PI.  (Eng.)  224 452 

Bnmdage  v  Deardorf 92  Fed.  214,  aff'g.  55  Fed.  839 

136,707,831,856,862 

Brunnenmeyer  v  Bulu-e 32  111.  183 383,  840 

Brunnett  v  Clark 1  Buff.  Sup.  Ct.  (Sheldon)  (N.  Y.) 

500 747 

Brunswick  v  Dunning 7  Mass.  445 438 

Bryan,  et  al  v  Watson 127  Ind.  42 739 

Bryant  v  Biddeford 39  Me.  193 760 

Bryant  v  McCandless 7  Ohio  (Pt.  11)  135 834 

Bryson's  Estate,  Re 7  Pa.  Sup.  Ct.  624 344,  405 

Buettner  v  Frazer. 100  Mich.  179 154,  326 

Bulkelev  v  Worthington  Ecclesi- 
astical Society 78  Conn.  526 404 

Bullock,  Re 6  Dem.  Sur.  Ct.  (N.  Y.)  335 880 

Bundy  v  Birdsall 29  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  31 6,  18,  810 

Burd    Orphan    Asylum    v   School 

District  of  Upper  Darby 90  Pa.  St.  21 556 

Burden  v  State 8  Ga.  App.  118 209 

Burke    v    Rector,     etc..     Trinity 

Church 63  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  43,  (aff'd.  132  App. 

Div.  (N.  Y.)  930) .  .  141,  565,  .566,  573 

Burke  v  Roper 79  Ala.  138 318 

liurkc  V  Wall 29  La.  Ann.  38 58,  284 

Burr  V  First  Parish  in  Sandwich.  .  9  Ma.ss,  276 12,  147,  181, 

184,  219,  220,  374, 380,  395,  397,  398 

Burr  Ex'rs.  v  Smith 7  Vt.  241 81 

Burrel  v  Associate  Ref.  Church, 

Seneca 44  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  282..  156,  542,615,  696 

Burry's  Appeal 1  Monag.  Pa.  Sup.  Ct.  Cas.  (Pa.) 

89 747 

Burt  V  Oneida  Community 137  N.  Y.  346 172 

Burton    v    Grand    Rapids   School 

Fm-niture  Company 10  Tex.  Civ.  Rep.  270 20 

Burton  V  Henson 10  Meeson  &  WeLsby  (Eng.)  105.  .  .434 

Bush  V  Cununonwc  iillli SO  Ky.  244 902 

Bush  V  State 5  Tex.  Ct .  App.  04 205 

Bushong  V  Taylor 82  Mo.  (UiO 355,  539 

P.ustin  V  Rogers 11  Cush.  (Ma.ss.)  :i4(i 778 


wiii  TAI'.IJ:  <»I'  ("ASICS 

Bullrr  V  K.-Iscv ;  '"'  •'"•""•'^  ^N.  Y.)  177 774 

Uutlcr  V  Trust (H's,  Parochial  Fund 
Protestant  Epis.  Church,  WchI- 

crn  N.  Y 1)2  Hun.  (N.  Y.)  96 r,72,  KiH 

Button  V  Aniorican  Tract  Society.  23  Vt.  ."«() H>H) 

Hutts  V  Swarlwood 2  Cow.  (\.  Y.)  431 '.KM 

Hyors  v  McCartney 62  la.  339 S42 

Cahill  V  HiKKcr 8  B.  Mon.  (Ky.J  211 444 

(^ain  V  Dalv 74  S.  C.  480 782 

Calkins  v  Cheney 92  111.  463 529,  558,  637,  S()8 

Callsen  et  al  v  Hope  ot  al 76  Fed.  (U.  S.)  758 299,  3(Hi 

Calvary  Baptist  Church  v  Dart  .  .   68  S.  C.  221 37,  419 

Cammever  v  United  German  Lu- 
theran Churches,  New  York  ...   2  Sandf.  Ch.  (N.  Y'.)  208 

306,  327,  603,  821 
Campbell  v  International  Life  As- 
surance Society,  London 4  Bosw.  (N.  Y'.)  298 7(i3 

Campbell  v  Paddington.  . 24  Eng.  Law  and  Eq.  Re.  597.  .  .  .544 

Canadian  Religious  Association  v 

Parmenter 180  Mass.  415 119,  320,  671,  808 

Canajoharie  and  Palatine  Church 

V  Leiber 2  Paige  Ch.  (N.  Y'.)  43 604 

Candia  v  French 8  N.  H.  133 8a2 

Cann  v  Rector,  etc.,  Chu.  of  the 

Holy  Redeemer,  St.  Louis 121  Mo.  App.  201 2,  568 

Cantrell  v  State 29  S.  \\'.  (Tex.)  42 205 

Cape  V  Plymouth  Cong.  Church.  .  117  Wis.  150,  130  Wis.  174 

185,  323,  516,  518,  525,  605,  830 
Capital  City  Athletic  Association 

V  Police  Commissioners,  Green- 
bush  9  Misc.  (N.  Y'.)  189 749 

Cargel  v  Grosvenor 2  Root  (Conn.)  458 642 

Cargill  V  Sewall 19  Me.  288 17.  395 

Carnell's  Estate,  Re 9  Phila.  (Pa.)  322 889 

Carpenter  v  Crane 1  Root  (Conn.)  98 776 

Carpenter  v  Miller 3  W.  Va.  174 404 

Carrick  V  Canevin 55    Pa.    Super.    Ct.    233,    243    Pa. 

Super.  Ct.  283 666 

Carskadon  v  Torrev.''on 17  W.  Va.  43 443,  837 

Carter  v  Balfour  Adm 19  Ala.  (N.  S.)  814 .885 

Carter  v  Branson,  et  al 79  Ind.  14 267,  536 

Carter  v  Green 3  Kay  &  J.  (Eng.)  591 81 

Carter  v  State 63  Ala.  52 896 

Carter  v  Whitcomb 74  N.  H.  482 616,  827,  905 

Gary  v  Abbot 7  Ves.  Jr.  (Eng.)  490 670 

Cat  let  t    V   Trustees,    Meth.  Epis. 

Ch.,  Sweetser  Station 62  Ind.  365 739 

Catlin  V  Trinity  College 113  N.  Y.  133 799 

Cattron   v  First  UniversaUst  So- 
ciety, Manchester 46  Iowa  106 15,  818 

Centenary     Methodist    Episcopal 

Chvu-rh  V  Parker 43  N.  J.  Eq.  307 842,  844 

Central  Military  Tract  R.  R.  Co. 

V  Rockafellow 17  III.  541 903 

Central    Park   Baptist   Church   v 

Patterson 9  Misc.  (X.  Y'.)  452 6 


TABLE  OF  CASES  xix 

Chambers  v  Calhoun 18  Pa.  St.  13 3,  731 

Chanibors  v  Higgins 49  S.  W.  (Ky.)  436 102 

Charleston  v  Allen 6  Vt.  633 374,  387,  394 

Charter  Church  of  Mother  of  God, 

Czen.stocho\va,  Re 5  Lack.  Leg.  N.  (Pa.)  128 613 

Chase  V  Cheney 58  111.  509 

140,  149,  222,  224,  393,  559,  619,  652 

Chase  v  Merrimack  Bank 19  Pick.  (Mass.)  564 437 

Chatard,  Bishop  v  O'Donovan.  .  .   SO  Ind.  20 .535 

Chatham  v  Brainerd 11  Conn.  60 81 

Chestnut  V  Harbaugh 78  Pa.  St.  473 757 

Chevra  Bnai  Israel  Aushe  Yanove 
und  Motal  v  Chevra  Bikur  Cho- 

liui  Au.she  Rodof  Sholem 24  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  189 293,  633 

Chevra  Medrash  Auschei  Makaver 
V  Makower  Chevra  Aucchi  Po- 
land  .....^ .  60  N.  Y.  Supp.  355 293,  601 

Chicago    V    Baptist    Theological 

Union 115  111.  245 794 

Chick  V  Trevett 20  Me.  462 818 

Chi.sholm  v  State 24  S.  \V.  (Tex.  Crim.  App.)  646.  .  .207 

Chittenden  v  Chittenden 1  Am.  L.  Reg.  (N.  Y.)  538 

349,  488,  604 

Christ  Church  v  PhiUips 5  Del.  Ch.  429 155 

Christ  Church  v  Trustees  of  Dona- 
tions and  Bequests  for  Church 
])urpo.ses:  Trustees  of  Donations 

and  Bequests  v  Christ  Church. .   67  Conn.  554 647 

Cliristian  Church  v  Carpenter.  .  .    108  la.  647 94,  700 

Christian  Church  of  Sand  Creek  v 

Church  of  Christ,  Sand  Creek.  .  219  lU.  503 52,  53,  141,  699 

Christian    Church,    Himtsville    v 

Sommer 149  Ala.  145 112,  163,  286 

Christian  Society,  Plymouth  v  Ma- 
comber  5  Mete.  (Mass.)  155 96,  640 

Church  v  Bullock 109  S.  W.  (Tex.)  115 675,  718 

Church   Extension   of   the   Meth. 

Epis.  Church  v  Smith 56  Md.  362 341,  885,  893 

Church    of    Clu-ist    v    Christian 

Church,  Hammond . 193  111.  144 94,  826 

Church    of    St.     Francis,     Pointe 

Coupee  V  Martin 4  Rob.  (La.)  62 162,  674 

Church  of  the  Epiphany  v  Raine.  .    10  Ohio  Dec.  449 543 

Church  V  Seibert 3  Pa.  St.  282 226,  275,  309.  319 

C^hurch  V  Well's  Executors 24  Pa.  249 462 

Cicotte  V  Anciaux 53  Mich.  227 157.  684 

Cilley  V  C^avford Smith  (N.  II.)  1.50 802 

Cincinnati  v  Babb 29  Wkly.  Law.  Bui.  (Ohio)  284.  .  .  .536 

Cincinnati  Board  of  Education  v 

Minor 23  Ohio  St.  211 45 

City  Bank,   New  Orleans  v  Mc- 

Intyre 8  Rob  Re.  (La.)  467 454 

City  Council,  Charleston  v  Ben- 
jamin     2  Strobh.  L.  (S.  C.)  508 769 

Clap  V  Smith 16  Pick.  (Mass.)  246 746 

Clapp  v  Hale 112  Mass.  368 783 


XX  iwi'.u:  OF  ("Asi:s 

(MiirU  V  Kniwii  lOS  S.  \V.  (Toxtv^)  421 

r.n,  1  .',(•),  222.  :il8.  r,28,  846 
Clark  V  E  v  an  kc  1  i  (r  a  1  So<;i('ty, 

(^iiincy 12  Gray  (Mjush.)  17  841 

Clark  V  O'Rourke Ill  Mifh.  108 845 

Clark  V  Stalo 78  S.  W.  (Tex.)  1078 208 

Claunhton  v  IMacnauKhton 2  Munf.  (Va.)  fjl-'J .551 

Clayton  v  Carcv 4  Md.  2«) 312 

Clinc  V  State.  .' 130  Pac.  (Okl.)  510 201  (2) 

Clinton  v  State 53  Fla.  98 • 898 

Coates  V  New  York 7  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  585 63 

Cobb  V  Denton 6  Baxter  (Tenn.)  235 893 

Cochran  v  Camden 15  Mass.  206 12 

Coekreham  v  State 7  Hump.  (Tenn.)  11 208 

Coek.s  V  Manners.  . 12  L.  R.  Eq.  (Eng.)  574 89 

Cohen    v    Congregation    Shearith 

Israel 114  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  117.  . .  .60,  232 

Coit  V  Comstock 51  Conn.  352 827 

Colby    V    Northfield    and    Tilton 

Congi'egational  So(;iety 63  N.  H.  63 451,  463 

Coleman  v  O'Leary 114  Ky.  388 313,  474,  672,  887 

Collier  v   BaptLst  Education   So- 
ciety    8  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  68 737 

Combe  v  Brazier 2  Desaas.  (S.  C.)  431 517 

Commissioners  of  Charitable  Do- 
nations and  Bequests  v  Walsh. .    7  Ir.  Eq.  Re.  34  n 474 

Conmiittee  of  Missions  v  Pacific 

S>Tiod 157  Cal.  105 226,  512 

Commonwealth  v  Alexander 185  Mass.  551 787 

Commonwealth  v  Barnard Thach.  Crim.  Cases  (Mass.)  431.  .898 

Commonwealth  v  Batchelder Thac.  Cr.  Cas.  (Mass.)  191 .  .  .624,  898 

Commonwealth  v  Bearse 132  IMass.  542 57 

Commonwealth  v  Bm-ke 16  Gray  (Mass.)  33 897 

Commonwealth  v  Burry 5  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  481 762 

Commonwealth  v  Buzzell 16  Pick.  (Mass.)  153 

387,  901,  902,  903 

Commonweahh  v  Cain 5  Ser.  &  R.  (Pa.)  510 234,  870 

Commonwealth    ex    rel    Miller    v 

ComLsh 13  Pa.  St.  288 21 

Commonwealth  v  Cuyler 5  Watts.  &  S.  (Pa.)  275 393;  796 

Commonwealth  v  Davis 140  Mass.  485 421 

Commonwealth  v  Dupuv Brightly  N.  P.  (Pa.)  44.  .  .211,  595,  772 

Commonwealth  v  Ellenger 1  Brewst.  (Pa.)  352 896 

Commonwealth  v  Fields 4  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  434 769 

Commonwealth  v  Fletcher 12  Mass.  441 266 

Commonwealth  v  Foster 28  Pa.  Sup.  Ct.  400 781 

Commonwealth  v  Fuller 4  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  429 652,  770,  786 

Conmionwealth  ex  rel  Gordon  v 

Graham 64  Pa.  St.  339 574,  820 

Commonwealth  v  Green 4  \Miart.  (Pa.)  531 .  .483,  490,  503,  507 

Commonwealth  v  Hagan 140  Mass.  289 763 

Commonwealth  v  Herr 229  Pa.  132 626 

Conmionwealth  v  Houston 3  Pa.  Dist.  Re.  686,  14  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 

395 771 

Commonwealth  v  Jeandell 2  Grant's  Cas.  (Pa.)  506 772,  777 

Commonwealth  v  Jennings 3  Gratt.  (Va.)  624 213 


TABLE  OF  CASES  xxi 

Commonwealth  v  Kauffman 1  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  410 897 

Commonwealth  v  Keithan 1  Monag.  Pa.  Sup.  Ct.  Cas.  368.  .  .761 

Commonwealth  v  Kendig 2  Barr.  (Pa.)  448 750 

Commonwealth  v  Kneeland 20  Pick.  (Mass.)  206 49 

Commonwealth  v  Kno.x 6  Mas.s  76 768 

Commonwealth    v    Louisville    & 

Nashville  R.  R.  Co 80  Ky.  291 777 

Commonwealth  v  Lyne.s 142  Mas.s.  577 .896 

Commonwealth  v  Marzynski 149  Mas.s.  68 752 

Commonwealth  v  Matthews 2  Pa.  Dist    Re.  13 771 

Commonwealth  by  Barth  v  Mc- 

Cann 123  Ky.  247 783 

Commonwealth  v  McDole 2  Pa.  Dist.  Re.  370 214 

Commonwealth  v  Meyers 8  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  435 749 

Commonwealth    ex    rel    Scull    v 

Morrison 13  Phila.  (Pa.)  135 870 

Commonwealth  v  Mullins 2  Allen  (Mass.)  295 896 

Commonwealth  v  Nesbit 34  Pa.  398 786 

Commonwealth  v  Robb 3  Pa.  Dist.  Re.  701,  14  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 

Re.  473 771 

Commonwealth  v  Rosseter 2  Bin.  (Pa.)  360 457,  460 

Commonwealth  v  Sampson 97  Mass.  407 781 

Commonwealth  v  Sigman 2  Clark  (Pa.)  36 

100,  209,  213,  622,  650 

Commonwealth  v  Smith 9  Mass.  107 265 

Commonwealth  v  Spooner 1  Pick.  (Mass.)  235 391 

Commonwealth  v  Teamann 1  Phila.  (Pa.)  460 771 

Commonwealth  v  Thomas 26  Ky.  Law.  Re  1128 84 

Commonwealth  v  Trickey 13  Allen  (Mass.)  559 763 

Commonwealth  v  Underkoflfer. ...    11  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  589 211 

Commonwealth  v  Waldraan 8  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  449 748 

Commonwealth  v  Weidncr 4  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  437 55,  751 

Commonwealth  v  Winnemore.  ...    1  Brewst.  (Pa.)  356 899 

Commonwealth  v  Woelper 3  Ser.  &  R.  (Pa.)  29 234,  870 

Commonwealth  v  Wolf 3  Ser.  &  R.  (Pa.)  48 763 

Commonwealth    v    Young    Men's 

Christian  Association ..... 25  Ky.  Law  Rep.  940 653,  799 

Concord  Society,   Strykcrsvillc   v 

Stanton 38  Hun  (N.  V.)  1 237,  574,  820 

(\mdonv  Church  of  St.  Augustine.   112  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  168 684 

Congregation  Beth  Klohini  v  Cen- 
tral Presbyterian  Church 10  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.)  (N.  Y.)  484.  .  .537 

Congiegat ion   of   the  Children   of 

Israel  v  Peres 2  Coldw.  (Tcnn.)  620 294,  379 

Congi-egat  ional    Home    Miss.    So- 
ciety V  Van  Arsdale 58  N.  J.  Eq.  293 184 

Congregat  ional  Society  Dubuque  v 

Fleming 11  Li.  533 39 

Congregational    Society,    Troy    v 

Perry. 6  N.  IL  164 734 

Congregational  Society,  Bethany  v 

Sperry. 10  Conn.  2(X) 432 

Congregational  Unitarian  Society 

v  Hale 29  A.  D.  (N.  Y.)  396 76,  847 

Congi-egation  of  Roman  Catholic 

Church  v  Texas  P.  Co 41  Fv<l.  nM 605 


xxii  TAHIJ-:  OF  CASIOS 

(^onklin  v  Davin ft'i  Conn.  377 612 

Conner,  Matter  of 44    Hun    (N.   Y.)  424,    1  St.  llep. 

(N.  Y.)  144 890 

Connolly  v  Boston 117  Ma.s8.  64 786 

Connitt  v  Ref.  Prot.  Dutch  Church  54  N.  Y.  551 

133, 134,  224,  379,  380,  381,  584 
Consi.storv  of  the  Reformed  Dutch 

Ch.  of  rrattsville  v  lirandow.  .  .    52  Barb.  (N.  Y'.)  228 581 

Coastant  v  8t .  Alban.s  Ch 4  Daly  (N.  Y.)  305 815 

Conway  v  Carpenter 80  Hun  (N.  Y'.)  429 389,  816 

Cook  V  Forker 193  Pa.  St.  461 754 

Cook  V  Hutchins 46  la.  706 797 

Cook  County  v  Industrial  School 

for  C.irls 125  III.  540 708,  712 

Coombs  V  Rose 8  Blackf.  (Ind.)  155 295 

Cooper  V  McKenna 124  Mass.  284 679 

Cooper  V  Presby.  Ch.of  Sandy  Hill.  32  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  222 450,  456,  639 

Copeland  v  Hewett 96  Me.  525 3 

Corporation  of  Elizabeth  City  v 

Kenedy Bush  (N.  C.  Law)  89 396 

Cory      Universalist      Society      v 

Beatty 28  N.  J.  Eq.  570 842,  867 

CottreU  V  Parkes 25  T.  L.  R.  (Eng.)  523 882 

Cowan's  Estate 4  Pa.  Dist.  Rep.  435 888 

Cox  V  State 136  Ala.  94 206 

Craig  V  First  Presby.  Ch 88  Pa.  St.  42 113,  315,  789 

Craigdallie  v  Aikman 2  Bligh  (Scotland)  529 699 

Cranfill  v  Hayden 97  Texas  544 38 

Cranson  v  Goss 107  Mass.  439 775 

Craven  v  State 109  Ga.  266 777 

Crepps  V  Durden 2  Cow.  (Eng.)  640 773 

Crerar  v  Williams 145  111.  625 84 

Crocker  v  Old  South  Society 106  Mass.  489 455 

Crombie  v  Overholtzer 11  Up.  Can.  55 775 

CroxaU's  Estate 162  Pa.  St.  579 87 

Cruse  V  Jones 3  Lea  (Tenn.)  66 3 

Cubbison  v  M'Creary 2  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  262 898 

Cunningham  v  Mahan 112  Mass.  58 765 

Curd  V  Wallace 7  Dana  (Kv.)  190 832 

Curran  v  White 22  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  Re.  201 :  .   45 

Currier  v  Trinity  Society,  M.  E. 

(^hurch,  Charlestown .  ! ...    109  Mass.  165 816 

Currv  V  First  Presbyterian  Con- 

gi-egation ." 2  Pittsburg  (Pa.)  40 465,  808 

Ciutis  V  First  Congregational  So- 
ciety, Quincy 108  Mass.  147 464 

Curtis  V  Strong 4  Day  (Conn.)  51 898 

Cushman  v  Church  of  the  Good 

Shepherd 162  Pa.  St.  280,  188  Pa.  St.  438.  . . 

154,531,569,622 

Dahl  V  Palache 68  Cal.  248 236,  562 

Dale  V  Knepp 98  Pa.  389 739 

Dall  V  Kimball 6  Me.  171 440 

Dalles  Citv  v  Missionary  Society 

M.  E.  Church ".   6  Fed.  356 355 

Daniel  y  Wood 1  Pick  (Mass.)  102 452 


TABLE  OF  CASES  xxiii 

Dascomb  v  Marston 80  Me.  223 88 

Dashiell  v  Attorney  Gen 6  Har.  &  J.  (Md.)  1 87 

Davidson  v  State 39  Tex.  129 896 

Davie  v  Heal 86  A.   D.    (N.    Y.)   517,   afT'd   180 

(N.  Y.)  545 291 

Davis  V  Beason 133  U.  S.  333 589,  592,  624 

Davis  V  Bradford 58  N.  H.  476 725 

Davis  V  Cong.  Beth.  Tephila  Israel.  40  A.  D.  (N.  Y.)  424 293,  318,  601 

Davis  V  Owen 107  Va.  283 15 

Davis  V  Proprietors  Second   Uni- 

versalist  Meeting  House 8  Mete.  (Mass.)  321 866 

DavLs  v  State 16  So.  (Miss.)  377 209 

Davis  v  Witts Forr.  (Eng.)  14 460 

Dawson  v  State 7  Tex.  Ct.  of  App.  59 204 

Day,  den  ex  dem  v  Bolton 12  N.  J.  L.  206.  .328,  579,  580,  583,  585 

Dayton  v  Carter 206  Pa.  St.  491 234,  483,  504 

Deaderick  v  Lampson 11  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  523. .  .  .227,  500,  705 

De  Camp  v  Dobbins 29  N.  J.  Eq.  36 577  (2),  611 

Dedric  v  Hopson 62  la.  562 900 

Dees  V  Moss  Point  Bapt.  Ch 17  So.  Rep.  (Miss.)  1 150,  320 

Delarnater  v  Miller 1  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  75 757 

Dernpsey  v  North  Michigan  Con- 
ference, Wesleyan  Meth.  Con- 
nection of  America 98  Mich.  444 311,  398,  874 

Denni.son  v  Austin 15  Wis.  334 607,  819 

De  Ruyter  v  St.  Peters  Ch 3  N.  Y.  238 599 

De  Sanchez  v  Grace  Meth.  Epis. 

Church 114  Cal.  295 845 

De  Themmines  v  De  Bonneval. .  .   7  L.  J.  Ch.  (Eng.)  35 790 

Deut.sch  V  Stone 11  Ohio  Dec.  436 461 

Devoss  V  Gray 22  Ohio  159 3,  846 

De  Wolf  V  Lawson 61  Wis.  469 886 

Dexter  v  Gardner 7  Allen  (Mass.)  243 258 

De  Zeng  v  Beckman 2  Hill  (N.  Y.)  489 809 

Dickenson's  Estate,  Re 56  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  232 886 

Dickerson  v  Kirk 105  Md.  638 521 

Dickson  v  Montgomery 1  Swan  (Tenn.)  348 29,  832 

Dic'ffcndorf  v  Reformed  Calvinists 

C^hurch 20  Johns  (N.  Y.)  12 736 

Dillon  V  Reilly 10  Ir.  Eq.  Re.  152 474,  475 

Dismukes  v  State 58  So.  (Ala.)  195 112,  153 

District  of  Columbia  v  Robin.son.   30  App.  D.  C.  283 99,  767 

Dochkus  V  Lithuanian  Benefit  So- 
ciety, St.  Anthony 206  Pa.  St.  25 669,  672,  681 

Doe  Baker  v  Clark 7  U.  C.  Q.  B.  (Can.)  44 878 

Doe  v  Copestake 6  East.  (Eng.)  328 74 

Doe  V  Pitcher 6  Taunt.  R.  (Eng.)  363 82 

Doe  V  Read 3  U.  C.  Q.  B.  (Can.)  244 874 

Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary 

Society's  Appeal 30  Pa.  St.  425 75,  403,  420,  553, 884 

Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary 
Society,     Protestant    Episcopal 

Church  V  Gaither 62  Fed.  Rep.  422 551 

Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary 
Societv,  Prot.  Epis.  Church  v 
Reynolds 9  Md.  341 554 


XX iv  TAIilJ;  (IK  CASIIS 

Dotialioc  V  F^ich.'inls ;!S  Mc  '.iH\                                              45 

Ddiiticllv  V  St.  Joliii's  I'rotivstaiil 

i'-liis.  Cli 'JC,  L;i.  Anil,  7;JS 14 

Doiioviin  V  McCart.y 1.',")  Miuss.  543 770 

Domnus  v  Hutch  Rof.  Church. .  .    3  N.  .J.  Kq.  332 583 

Dorn  V  State 4  Tex.  App.  67 208 

DoriKT  V  School  District  No.  5.  .    137  Wis.  147 717 

]:)orlon  V  Ilcarn 67  Mo.  301 694 

DounhcTty's  Estate 12  Phila.  (Pa.)  70 470 

Doup;hi.ss's  Estate,  lie 143  N.  W.  (Neb.)  299 107 

Dow  V  Town  of  Hinesburgh,  and 

Weed 2  Aikens  (Vt.)  18 389 

Doyle  V  Lynn  and  Boston  Rail- 
road Company 118  Mjuss.  195 78.5 

Draper  v  Draper 68  111.  17 896 

Dressen  el  al  v  Brameier,  et  al .  .   56  la.  756 301 

Drew  V  Ilogan .  26  App.  D.  C.  55 37 

Drunihell(>r    v    First    Universalist 

Church,  Pierceton 45  Ind.  275 865 

Druiy  V  Defontaine 1  Taunt.  (Eng.)  135 780 

Dubs  V  Esher 6  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  312 247 

Duessel  v  Proch 78  Conn.  343 300,  303 

Dulany  v  Middleton  Ex'rs 72  Md.  67 78 

DuUes  Estate 218  Pa.  162 833 

Dutch   Church   in   Garden   St.   v 

Mott 7  Paige  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  77..  .  .77,586,634 

Dwenger  v  Geary 113  Ind.  106 

47,  60,  62,  64,  667,  669,  827 

Eager  v  Marlborough 10  Mass.  430 434 

Eai-le  V  Wood. 8  Cush.  (Mass.)  431 158 

East  Carolina  Diocese  v  Trustees 

North  Carolina  Diocese 102  N.  C.  442 550,  555 

Easterbrooks  v  Tillinghast 5  Gray  (Mass.)  17 879 

Eastman's  Estate 60  Cal.  308 39 

East    Norway    Lake    Norwegian 

Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  v 

Froislie 37  Minn.  447 442 

Ebaugh  V  Hendel 5  Watts.  (Pa.)  43 576 

Ebbinghaus  v  Ivillian 1  Mackey  (Dis.  of  C.)  247 

276,547,575,576,831 
Ecclesiastical    Society    of    South 

Farms  v  Beckwith Kii-by  (Conn.)  91 376 

Eggleston  v  Doohttle 33  Conn.  396 291 

Eis  V  Croze 149  Mich.  62 673 

Eliot's  Appeal 74  Conn.  586 554,  ooo 

Ellis  V  State 65  So.  (Ala.)  412,  10  Ala.  App.  252 .  .20) 

Ellis  V  State 5  Ga.  App.  615 773 

Elmsley  v  Madden 18  Grant's  Ch.  (Can.)  386 473 

Elsas  V  Bro^-ne 68  Ga.  117 727 

Emerson  v  Wiley 10  Pick.  (Mass.)  317 443 

Emonds  v  Termehr 60  la.  92 685 

England  v  Vestry  Prince  George's 

Parish 53  Md.  466 886 

Enos  V  Chestnut 88  111.  590 16 

Episcopal  Academy  v  Philadelphia  150  Pa.  565 556 

Erwin  v  Hurd 13  Abb.  N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  91 453 


TABLE  OF  CASES  xxv 

]]urcka  Stone  Company   v   First 

Christian  Ch 86  Ark.  212 8 

Eutaw    Place    Baptist    Church   v 

Shively 67  Md.  493 789 

Evangelical  Association's  Appeal.  35  Pa.  St.  316 245 

Everett     v     First      Presbyterian 

Church 53  N.  J.  Eq.  .500 443,  496,  510,  822 

Ewing  v  Bailey 36  111.  App.  191 898 

Fadness  v  Braunborg 73  Wis.  257. .  164, 426, 427,  706, 840;  841 

Fairbanks  v  Lanison 99  Mass.  533 79 

Fairfield  v  Lawson 50  Conn.  501 87 

Farnsworth  v  Storrs 5  Cush.  (Mass.)  412 109,  115,  116 

Fanell  v  Warren 3  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  254 214 

Fassett  v  First  Parish,  Boylston.  .  19  Pick.  (Mass.)  361 459 

Faulkner  v  National  Sailor's  Home  155  Mass.  4.58 887 

Faxon  v  Folvey 110  Mass.  392 787 

Fay,  Matter  of 37  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  532 616 

Fearns^Will,  Re 27  Wkly.  Rep.  (Eng.)  392 881 

Feiner  v  Reiss 98  A.  D.  (N.  Y.)  40 722 

Feital  v  Middlesex  Raih-oad  Com- 
pany    109  Mass.  398 787 

Feizel  v  Trustees  of  the  first  Ger- 
man Society  of  M.  E.  Church .  .  9  Kan.  592 384,  655 

Fennell  v  Ridler 5  Barn.  &  Cres.  (Eng.)  406 780 

Fernald  v  Lewis 6  Me.  264 324 

I'Vrnstler  v  Seibert 114  Pa.  196 307 

Ferraria  v  Vasconcellos 31  111.  1,  23  111.  456.  .  139,  487,  533,  698 

Festorazzi's  v  St.  Joseph's  Cath- 
olic Church 104  Ala.  327 475,  479 

Fetter  v  Wilt 46  Pa.  St.  457 210 

Field  V  Drew  Theological  Seminary  41  Fed.  371  (Cir.  Ct.  Del.) .  .  69, 344,  380 

Field  V  Field 9  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  394 .  .  151,  266, 641,  830 

Field  V  Park 20  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  140 765 

Fifield  V  Van  Wyek's  Executors.  .  94  Va.  557 792 

Fink  V  Fink  E.xec^utors 12  La.  Ann.  301 546 

Fmk  V  Umscheid 40  Kan.  271 664,  841,  846 

Finley,  Matter  of 58  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  639 114 

Finley  v  Brent 87  Va.  103 371 

First  African  Methodist  Episcopal 

Zion  Church  v  HiUery 51  Cal.  155 811,823 

First    Baptist    Church,    Ithaca    v 

Bigelow 16  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  28 461 

First  Baptist  Church  of  San  Jose 

V  Branhan 90  Cal.  22 15 

First     Baptist     Church,     Erie    v 

Caughey 85  Pa.  St.  271 808 

First  Baptist  Church,  Paris  v  Fort.  93  Tex.  215 147 

First  Baptist  Church  in  Franklin- 
dale  V  Prvor 23  Hun  (N.  Y.)  271 117,  541 

First  Baptist  Church  v  llapele(>.  .  16  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  605 607,733 

First  Baptist  Church  v  Rohherson.  71  Mo.  326 878 

First    Baptist   Ch.    and   Cong,    v 

Rouse 21  Conn.  ItiO 5 

First  Baptist  Ch.  in  Schenectady  v 
The  Utica  *  Schenectady  R.R. 

Co ■ 6  Barb.  (N.  V.)  313 4,  202,  429 


xxvi  TAIMJ-:  (H'  CASliS 

I'lrst   Huplist   C;ii.  in  Schcncrtiuly 

V  Troy  &   Schonccliuly   11.    R. 

Co 5  Harb.  (N.  Y.)  79 . 4,  429 

FirKt,  Baptist  Society  of  Leeds  v 

(;r:in» 59  Mc.  245 449,  449,  453,  543 

I'irst  ( 'h.  of  Christ  Scientist,  Appli- 

cal  ion  of 6  Pa.  Dist.  745 105 

Fir.st  ('}).  of  Christ  Scientist,  Ap- 

plicMt  ion  of 205  Pa.  543 105 

First  CliuiTh  f)f  Christ  Scientist  in 

Huffalo,  N.  Y.  V  Schreck 70  Misc.   (N.  Y.)  VAo,   127  N.  Y. 

Supp.  174 10.5,  789 

First  ConRregational  Church,  N(!\v 

Orleans  v  Ilc-ndorson 4  Rob.  (La.)  211 877 

First        ConKrc^at  ional       Society 

Woodstock  V  Swan 2  Vt.  222 742 

First  Congi^'gat  ional  Church,  Ionia 

V  W(>bb(T 54  Mich.  571 Gil 

First  Constitutional  Presby.  Ch.  v 

Congregational  Society .' 23  la.  567 161,  162,  8:36 

First  Evangehcal  Lutheran  Church 

V  Gardner 28  Pa.  Sup.  Ct.  82 732 

Fust  Meth.  Epis.  Ch.,  Chicago  v 

Dixon 178  111.  260 599 

Fiist  Methodist  Epis.  Chui'ch.  Ft. 

Madison  v  Donnell 110  la.  5 739 

Fii-st  Methodist  Epis.  Church,  At- 
tica V  Filkins 3  T.  &  C.  (N.  Y'.)  279.  .4,  342,  615,  817 

First  Methodist  Epis.  Society  v 
Brayton 9  Allen  (Mass.)  248 464 

First  Methodist  Protestant  Church, 

Scranton,  Appeal  of 16  Wkly.  Cas.  N.  (Pa.)  245 370 

First  National  Bank,  Bai-  Harbor 

V  Kingsley 84  Me.  Ill 777 

Fii-st  National  Bank,  Plattsmouth 

V  Rector 59  Neb.  77 325 

First  Pari.sh,  Shapleigh,  v  Oilman.    13  Mass.  190 442 

First  Parish,  Medford  v  Pratt ....   4  Pick.  (Mass.)  222 436 

First  Parish,  Quincv  v  Spear 15  Pick.  (Mass.)  144 454 

First  Parish,  Sudbury,  v  Steams.  .   21  Pick.  (Mass.)  148 238,  437 

First  Parish,  Winthrop  v  TowTi  of 

\Vinthrop 1  Me.  208 435 

First  Presbyterian  Chiu"ch,  Bloom- 
field,  Re 107  Pa.  St.  ^3 640 

First  Presbyterian  Ch.  Wagoner  v 

Cumberland  Pres.  Ch., Wagoner.  126  P.  197 195 

First  Presbyterian  Church,  Chi- 
cago Heights  V  McCoUy 126  111.  App.  333 814 

First    Presbyterian  Church  of 

Perry  y  Meyers 5  Okl.  809.  .224.  376,  395,  395,  494,  630 

First    Presbyterian    Chu.    v    New 

(Orleans .  ." 30  La.  Ann.  259 797 

First  Presbyterian  Church,  Louis- 

yille  y  Wilson 14  Bush.  (Ky.)  252 .  .  108, 141,  324,  509 

First  Presbyterian  Society  of  An- 
trim V  Bass 68  N.  H.  333 449 


TABLK  OF  CASES  xxvii 

First   Presbyterian  Society,   Chili 

V  Bowen 21  Hun  (N.  Y.)  389 844 

First     Presby.     Society,     Buffalo, 

Matter  of .  .  . 106  N.  Y.  251 539 

First    Presbyterian    Society,    Gal- 

lipolis  V  Smithers 12  Ohio  St.  248 574,  820 

First  Reformed  Presby.  Church  v 

Bowden 14  Abb.N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  356.  . .  .526,  810 

First  Religious  Society  of  Whites- 
town  V  Stone 7  John  (N.  Y.)  112 736 

First  Society  v  Brownell 5  Hun  (N.  Y.)  464 641 

First  Unitarian  Society,   H.'U'tford 

V  Hartford ' 06  (^onn.  368 799,  851 

First  Ihiiversalist  Society,  Salem  v 

Bradford 185  Mass.  310 799,  866 

First   Universalist    Society,    New- 

buryport  v  Currier. 3  Mete.  (Mass.)  417 735 

First  Universalist  Society,  North 

Adams  &  others  v  Fitch 8  Gray  (Ma.ss.)  421 865,  882 

Fitzgerald  v  Robinson 112  Mass.  371 685 

Fitzimmons,  Matter  of 29  Mis.  (N.  Y.)  731 .  .  .689,  886,  888  (2) 

Fitzpatrick  v  Pltzgerald 13  Gray  (Mass.)  400 663 

Flagg  V  Millburv 4  Cush.  (Mass.)  243 770 

Flood  V  Ryan 220  Pa.  450 826 

Flynn  v  Columbus  Club 21  R.  I.  534 745 

Folds  V  State 123  Ga.  167 204 

Foley  Estate,  Re .   27  MLsc.  (N.  Y.)  77 881 

Follett  V  Badeau 26  Hun  (N.  Y.)  253 837 

Foote  V  West 1  Denio  (N.  Y.)  544 460 

Foster  v  Wooten 67  Mi.ss.  540 750 

Foundling  Hospital  v  Garrett 47  L.  T.  (Eng.)  230 120 

Fourth      Universalist     Parish     v 

Wenslev 5  Wkly.  Note  Cas.  (Pa.)  273 867 

Fox  V  Abel 2  Conn.  541 760 

Fox  V  Mensch . 3  Watts.  &  S.  (Pa.)  444 750 

Foxcroft     V     Piscataquis     Valley 

Camp  Meeting  Association ....  86  Me.  78 55 

Fralick  v  Lyford 107  A.  D.  (N.  Y.)  543 730 

Franch     v     Old     South    Society, 

Boston 106  Mass.  479 455 

Franke  v  Mann 100  Wis.  118 272,  525 

Franklin   Street  Society   v   Man- 

^  Chester 60  N.  H.  342 796 

Franta  v  Bohemian  Roman  Cath- 
olics Central  Union 164  Mo.  304 670 

Frazee,  Matter  of 63  Mich.  390 620,  691 

Frodenbvug  v  Lyon  Lake  Methoil- 

ist  Ei)is.  Ciiunh 37  Mich.  476 84t) 

Fredericks  v  Hubcr ISO  Pa.  572 284 

Freeland  v  Neale 1  Robt .  Eccles.  (Eng.)  648 177 

Fre<'i)()rt  Bank  v  Egan 140  Pa.  106 14 

Freligh  v  Piatt 5  Cowan  (N.  Y.)  494 464 

French   Adni'r.  v  Trustees,  Gris- 

wold  College 60  Li.  482 553 

Friedlander  v  State 7  Tex.  i'\.  App.  204 206 

F.  V.  F.  (1) (1902)  1  L.  R.  Ch.  (Eng.)  OSS 2S1 


xwiii  TAIMJ':  ()!•'  <'ASi:s 

I'ricnsoii    v    (Icncriil    AsHctnblv   of 

rrcsbylcrian  ( ;h ".  .  .  .   7  Hcisk.  (Tcnn.J  68:i 498,  790 

F  r  y  (•  b  u  r  g  I'  ii  r  s  o  n  ;i  g  c  Kund 

V  Riplov 6  Mo.  442 732 

l''urhs  V  IVIciscl 102  Mich.  3.57 137,  244,  382,  833 

l'"ull)iight  V  lliKgenbotham 133  Mo.  ()()8 130,  190,  528 

FasKcll  V  Hail 233  III.  73 143,  191,  195 

Gable  v  MiUer 10  Paige  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  627  {wan  rt- 

versed) 144,586 

Gaff  V  Greer 88  Ind.  122 138,  492,  .508 

Gage  V  Currier 4  Piek.  fMas.s.)  399 437,  440 

".allies  V  State 7  Lea  (Tenn.)  410 519 

laiiible,  Sueee.ssion  of 23  La.  Ann.  9 4.57 

lairel  t  v  Naee 5  Pa.  Sup.  Ct .  475 246 

lartin  v  Peniek 5  Bash.  (Ky.)  110.  .  .  101,  116,  490,  511 

Jarvey  v  Coleock 1  Nott  &  McC.  (S.  C.)  138 819 

Gasely   v   Separatists   Society   of 

Zoar 13  Ohio  St.  144 175 

Gass  Appeal 73  Pa.  39 6.55 

Gass  and  Bonta  v  Wilhite 2  Dana  (Ky.)  170 80,  721,  724,  791 

Gay  V  Baker 17  Mass.  435 455,  457 

General  Asscnnbly,  Free  Chui-eh  of 

Scotland  v  Overtoun (1904)  Law  Rep.  App.  Cases  (Eng.) 

515 108,  252,  253,  254,  864 

German  Evangelical  Cong. 

V  Pressler 17  La.  Ann.  127 289 

German  Evangelical  Lutheran 

Church,  Newark  v  Maschop ...    10  N.  J.  Eq.  .57 164,  270 

German  Ref.  Ch.  v  Busche 5  Sandf.  Sup.  Ct.  666 815 

(Jerman  Roman  Catholic  Church 

v  Kaus 6  Ohio  Dec.  1028 14 

CJewin    v    Mt.     Pilgrim     Baptist 

Church 166  Ala.  345 324,  845 

Gibbs  v  Gilead  Ecclesiastical  So- 
ciety   38  Conn.  153 9, 183, 186 

Gibson  V  Armstrong 7  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  481 3.59,  361 

Gilchrist  v  Corliss 1.55  Mich.  126 185 

Oilman  v  HamUton 16  111.  225 83 

Oilman  v  McArdle 99N. Y.451, 12Abb.N.C.414.  .475,476 

( lilmer  v  Stone 120  U.  S.  586 .497 

Oihnore  v  Lee 237  111.  402 471 

Gip.son  V  Morris 36  Te.x.  Civ.  App.  .593,  31  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  645,  28  Tex.  Civ.  App.  555. ..701 

Gladstone  Baptist  Church  v  Scott.   25  Ky.  L.  Rep.  237 819 

Olendale  Union  Cluistian  Society 

V  Brown 109  Mass.  163 604 

Globe   Furniture  Co.   v  Trustees 

.lerusalem  Bapt.  Church 103  Va.  559 17,  117 

Goddard  v  Smithett 3  Gray  (Mass.)  116 639 

Godfrev  v  Walker 42  Ga.  562 368 

Godwin  v  Lunan Jeff.  (Va.)  96 228 

Goesele  v  Bimeler 14  How.  (U.  S.)  589 175 

Going  V  Emery 16  Pick.  (Mass.)  107 78 

Good  V  Zook 116  Ln.  582 892 

Goodell  V  l^nion  Association  of  the 

Children's  Home 29  N.  J.  Eq.  32 827, 893 


TABLE  OF  CASES                           xxix 

Gorman  v  Lowell 117  Mass.  65 785 

Gortemiller  v  Rosengarn 103  Ind.  414 8 

Gorton  v  Hadsell 9  Gush.  (Mass.)  508 455,  458 

Gouldins  v  State 82  Ala.  48 209 

Gowan  v  Smith 157  Mich.  443 781 

Gram  v  Prussia  Emigi-ated  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  German  Society  36  N.  Y.  161 ..  .  .289,  382,  610,  817,  835 

Grant  v  State 141  Ala.  96 727 

Gray  v  Christian  Society 137  M:uss.  329 318,  322 

Gray  v  Good 44  Ind.  App.  C.  Rep.  476 13,  638 

Greater     Newburgh     Amusement 

Company,  Inc.,  v  Sayer 81  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  307 749 

Greek  ('atholic  Church  v  Orthodox 

Greek  Church 195  Pa.  St.  425 278,  279,  656 

Green  v  Allen 5  Hump.  (Tenn.)  170 358 

Green  v  Cady 9  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  414 16,  20,  806 

Greene  v  Dennis 6  Conn.  293 267,  886 

Greenland  Ch.  &  Cong.  Society  v 

Hatch 48  N.  H.  393 107 

Gregg  V  Wyman 4  Cush.  (Mass.)  323 755 

Gregg's  Estate,  Re 213  Pa.  260 890 

Gridley  v  Clark 2  Pick.  (Mass.)  403 400 

Griffith  V  Matthews 5  Durnf.  &  East.  (Eng.)  296 461 

Griffiths  V  Reed 1  Hagg.  Ecc.  Re.  (Eng.)  79 126 

Griggs  V  Middaugh 10  Ohio  Dec.  643 

135,  165,  707,  853,  862 
Grimes  Executors  v  Harmon  and 

others 35  Ind.  198 69,  139,  158,  883 

Grimes  v  State 105  Ala.  86 895 

Grissom  v  Hill 17  Ark.  483 8 

Groesbeeck  v  Dunscomb 41  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  302 123,  565 

Grosvenor  v  United  Society  of  Be- 
lievers . 118  Mass.  78 722 

Grove  v  Trustees  of  the  (yong.  of 

the  Disciples  of  Jesus  Christ ...   33  Md.  451 218 

Gudmundson    v    Thingvalla    Lu- 
theran Church 150  N.  W.  (N.  D.)  750.  .  .  .41,  301,  302 

Guild  V  Richards 16  Gray  (Mass.)  309 335 

Gumbleton,  Ex  Parte 2  Atk.  (ICng.)  70 265 

Gump  V  Sibley 79  Md.  165 59 

Guthrie  v  Guthrie 10.  S.  E.  (Sup.  Ct.  Apj).  Va.)  327.  .489 

Haacke  v   Knights  of  Libei-(v  So- 
cial and  Literary  Clul)  ......      76  Md.  429 782 

Haas  v  Missionary  Society  of  the 

Most  Holy  Redeemer 6  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  281 608 

Hackett     v     Brooksville    Graded 

School  District 27  Ky.  L.  1021 41,  716 

Hackncv  v  Vawter 39  Kan.  615 653 

Hadden  v  CJhorn 8  B.  Mon.  (Kv.)  70 702,  703 

Haddcn  v  Dandy 51  N.  J.  Kq.  154 874 

Hadlev  v  Forsee 203  Mo.  418,  16  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.)  96.  .479 

Hagenmeyer  v  Haaselman 2  Dem.  (N.  Y.)  87 313,  471 

Hagenmeyer's  Will,  Re 12  Abb.  N.  C.  432 470 

Hale  v  Everett 53  N.  H.  1 98,  147,  187, 

546,  632,  697,  700,  840.  851 
Hall  v  Corcoran 107  Ma.ss.  251 758 


xxx  'iwiuj:  oi'  casks 

IImII  V  Planner 1  Lcvinz  (Eng.)  196 654 

llalscv  V  Convonlion  of  the  Prot^ 
est  ant  lOpiscopal  Church,  Mary- 
land Diocosp 75  Md.  275 572 

llatnnicl  v  ( Icrnian  Cong 1  Wkly.  Notes  Caa.  (Pa.)  411 286 

llainslicr  v  Ilanishrr •.•  •;  l-'i2  111.  273 905 

Hancock  v  Supn  iiic  Council  Cath- 
olic Benevolent  Legion 67  N.  J.  Law  614 676 

Hanson  v  Lit  t  le  Si.ster.s  of  the  Poor.  79  Md.  434 531,  600 

llai)pv  V  Morton 33  111.  398 72 

ll.nihison  v  Finst  Pres.  Society.  .  .   46  Conn.  529 321,  631 

llanl  V  Wiley 87  Va.  125 292 

Hardin  v  Trustees  of  Second  Bap- 

ti.st  Church  of  City  of  Detroit.   51  Mich.  137 321 

HarKTavo  &  Taylor (Hill.  13  W,  111)  Fort  (Eng.)  375.  .765 

Harlem    Presbyterian    Church    v 

New  York 5  Hun  (N.  Y.)  442 613 

Harmon  v  Dreher 1  Speer's  Eq.  (S.  C.)  87 

137, 298,  390,  705 

Harper  v  Straws 14  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  48 116,  541,  542 

Harrel  v  State .   38  Term.  125 901 

Harriman  v  First  Bryan  Baptist 

Church 63  Ga.  186 602 

Harris  v  American  Baptist  Home 

Mission  Society 33  Hun  (N.  Y\)  411 890 

Harris  v  (^ro.sbv .' 55  So.  (Ala.)  231 195 

Harris  v  Pounds 64  Ga.  121 56 

Harrisburg  Lumber  Co.  v  Wash- 
burn    29  Ore.  150 8 

Harrison  v  Brophy 59  Kan.  1 471 

Hai-rison  v  Hoyle 24  Ohio  2.54 163,  256,  262 

Harrison  v  Marshall 4  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y'.)  271 755 

Harrison  v  Powers 76  Ga.  218 753 

Harrison  v  St.  Mark's  Church.  .  .    12  Phila.  (Pa.)  259 40 

Harrison  v  State 37  Ala.  (N.  S.)  154 211 

Hart  V  School  Dist.,  Throopsville .   2  Lancaster  Law  Re.  (Pa.)  347.  .44,  231 

Hartt  V  Harvey 32  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  55 235,  872 

Hatchett  et  al  v  Mt.  Pleasant  Bap- 
tist Chu.  et  al 46  Ark.  291 287 

Hatfield  v  De  Long 156  Ind.  207 .229 

Hauck  V  Ingles 148  N.  W.  (Minn.)  100 768 

Hayden  v  Mitchell 103  Ga.  431 768 

Haves,  et  al  v  Brubaker 65  Ind.  27 818 

Haves  v  Franklin 141  N.  C.  599 286 

HaVes  v  Manning 172  S.  W.  (Mo.)  897 195,  326 

Havnes  v  Sledge  and  Maxy 11  Ala.  (2  Port.)  530 774 

Healy  v  Reed 153  Mass.  197 897 

Heath  v  Chapman .....; 2  Drew.  Ch.  Re.  (Eng.)  417 478 

Hebrew  Cong.  Benai  Berith  Jacob 

V  United  States 6  Ct.  CI.  (Ga.)  241 645 

Heckman  v  Mees 16  Ohio  583 301 

Heoney  v  St.  Peter's  Ch 2  Edw.  Ch.  (N.  Y'.)  608 451 

Heseinan's  Executors  v  Roome ...   70  N.  J.  Eq.  562 882 

Heisler    v    Methodist    Protestant 

Church  of  Mapleton 147  N.  W.  (Iowa)  750 544 

Heiss  V  Vosburg 59  Wis.  532 664 


TABLE  OF  CASES  xxxi 

Helbig  V  Rosenberg 86  la.  159 10,  304 

Hellslern  v  Katzer 103  Wis.  391 162,  727 

Helm  V  Zarecor 213  Fed.  (Tenn.)  648 195 

Henderson  v  Erskine Smith's  N.  H.  Rep.  36 866 

Henderson  v  Hunter 59  Pa.  St.  335 348,  537 

Hendrick.son  v  Decow 1  Sax.  (N.  J.)  577 ..  .  .261  (2),  264,  627 

Hendrickson  v  Shotwell 1  N.  J.  Eq.  577 223,  261,  264 

Hendryx  v  People's  United  Church  42  Wash.  336 150,  151,  533 

Hennessey  v  Walsh 55  N.  H.  515 664 

Henry  v  Deitrich 84  Pa.  St.  286 114 

Hewitt  V  Wheeler 22  Conn.  557 629 

Hewitt's  Estate,  Re 94  Cal.  376 497 

Hicock  V  Ho.skine 4  Day's  Rep.  (Conn.)  63 639 

Hill  Estate  Company  v  Whittlesey.  21  Wash.  142 418 

Hilton  V  Houghton 35  Me.  143 776 

Hilton  V  Roylance 25  Utah  129 407,  412  (2) 

Hinde  v  Chorlton 15  Law  Times  N.  S.  (Eng.)  472 ..  .  .451 

Hoare  v  Osborne L.  R.  1  Eq.  (Eng.)  585,  35  L.  J. 

Ch.  345 71 

Hodges  V  Nalty 104  Wis.  464,  113  Wis.  567.  .734,  739 

Hodges  V  O'Brien 113  Wis.  97 732,  733 

Hodnett's    Estate,    Re;    O'Reilly 

Appeal '.  154  Pa.  485 892 

Hoeffer  v  Clogan 171  111.  462 471 

Hofer  V  Cowan,  McClung  Co ...  .  55  Cent.   Law  Journal    (Ct.   App. 

Ky.)  290 774 

Hoffner's  Estate,  Re 161  Pa.  331 891 

Holbrook  v  Holbrook 1  Pick.  (Mass.)  248 795 

Holcombe  v  Leavitt 124  N.  Y.  S.  980 103,  285,  320 

Holland  y  Alcock 108  N.  Y.  312 475 

Holland  v  Peck 2  Iredell  Eq.  (N.  C.)  255 884 

Hollingsworth  y  State. . 5  Sneed.  (Tenn.)  518 201 

Hollis  V  Drew  Theological  Sem- 
inary   95  N.  Y.  166 890 

Hollis  St.  Meeting  House  y  Pier- 

pont 7  Mete.  (Mass.)  495 226 

Hollywood  V  First  Parish,  Brock- 
ton    192  Mass.  269 436 

Holm  V  Holm 81  Wis.  374 161,  428 

Holmes  v  Mead 52  N.  Y.  332 77 

Holt  y  Downs 58  N.  H.  170 108,  111,  182 

Holt  y  State 1  Baxter  (Tenn.)  192 203 

Hornbeck  v  American  Bible  So- 
ciety   2  Sandf.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  133 81,  585 

Horsman  y  Allen 129  Cal.  131 157,  695,  860,  862 

Horton  v  Baptist  Ch.  &  Society 

of  Chester 34  Vt.  309 3 

Horton  y  Norwalk  Tramway  Com- 
pany    66  Conn.  272 777 

Hosford,  etc.  y  Lord 1  Root  (Conn.)  325 634 

Hoskinson    y    Pusey,     (White    v 

King) 32  Gratt.  (Va.)  428 362,  364 

Houck  y  Ingles 148  N.  W.  (Minn.)  100 900 

Houliston  y  Parsons 9  Up.  Can.  Q.  B.  681 775 

Howard,  Estate  of 5  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  295 472 

Howard  v  First  Parish 7  Pick.  (Mass.)  138 456 


xxxii  TA  I'.Li;   (  H"   fASIlS 

llnwani    SuikImv    ScIiodI    AssrxMii- 

lion  Ai)nc:il    .' 70  I'ii.  :{14 798 

ll.nsr    i{r 1  Viiw  Ch.  L\.  Y.)  213 614,828 

M(Av<-  V  Sicv.-ns 47  VI.  '2i\2 456 

Huhbiinl  V  Clniiiiin  Ciilh.  Cong.  .   M  la.  31 315,418 

lluIxT  V  (imnan  ("onf-; Hi  Ohio  Si.  :i71 599 

Jlunhcs  V   North  C'lint.oii   liaplist 

Church,  Eiwt  Orange 67  Atl.  66  (Sup.  Ct.  N.  J.) 310 

Hull  V  State 120  Iml.  153 213 

Humbert  v  St.  Stephen's  Church, 

NY  1  Edw.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  308.  .290,  373,  563 

Hunii)hrcy  v  Buniside 4  Bush.  (Ky.)  215 344,  ^365 

Huniphrevs  v  Little  Sisters  of  the 

Poor     '        7  Ohio  Dec.  194 596 

Hundley  v  Collins 131  Ala.  234 .  .  .  .107,  310,  610,  638,  846 

Hunt  V  State 3  Te.x.  Ct.  App.  116 205 

Hunter  v  Attorney  General 80  Law  Times  Rep.  (N.  S.)  (Eng.) 

732 825 

Huntington  v  Carpenter Kirby  (Conn.)  45 800 

Hussey  v  Georgia 69  Ga.  54 784 

Hvsong  V  Gallitzin  Borough  School 

District 164  Pa.  629 626,  715 

Iglehart  v  Rowe 20  Kv.  L.  Re.  821,  47  S.  W.  575.  .  . 

35, 150,  318 
Immanuel  Presbyterian  Church  v 

Riedy 104  La.  314 803 

Income     Tax     Commissioners     v 

Pemsel 61  L.  J.  Q.  B.  265  (N.  S.) 405 

Inglec  V  Bosworth 5  Pick.  (Mass.)  501 795 

Inhabitants  of  Bucksport  v  Spof- 

ford 12  Me.  487 439 

Irvine  v  EUiot 206  Pa.  St.  152 15, 132 

Isham  V  Fullager 14  Abb.  N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  363 

378,  493, 494,  632,  640,  809  (2) 
Isham    V    Trustees   of    the    First 

Presbv.  Ch.  of  Dunkirk 63  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y'.)  465.  .288,  388,  811 

Itter  V  Howe 23  Ont.  App.  Rep.  256.  .  .  146,  854,  862 

Jackson  v  Gridley 18  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  98 900,  901 

Jackson  v  Hopkins 78  A.  (Md.)  4 324 

Jackson  v  Phillips 14  Allen  (Mass.)  539 .69,  84 

Jackson  v  Rounsevillo 5  Mete.  (Mass.)  127 447,457 

Jacob  V  Dallow 2  Salk.  (Eng.)  551 229.  449 

Jacquet,  Re 40  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  575,  82  N.  Y.  S. 

986 281,590 

James  it  Parsons (Hill.  2  Anne)  Forts.  (Eng.)  374.  .  .787 

Jameson  v  Carpenter 68  N.  H.  62 773 

Jarrell  v  Si)roles 20  Tex.  Civ.  App.  387 33,  703 

.lefts  V  York 12  Cush.  (Mass.)  196 2 

Jenkins  v  Cook L.  R.  1  Probate  Div.  (Eng.)  80.  ...  121 

Jennings  v  Scarborough 56  N.  J.  Law  401 136,  560 

Jentzsch,  Ex  Parte 112  Cal.  4(58 748 

Jewett  V  Burroughs 15  Mass.  464 438 

Jewett  V  Thames  Bank 16  Conn.  511 639 

John.son  v  Corbett 11  Paige  Ch.  (X.  Y.)  265 462 

Johnson  v  Day 17  Pick.  (Mass.)  106 747 

Johnson  v  State 1  Tex.  Ct.  App.  609 897 


TABLK  OF  CASES  xxxiii 

Johnson  V  State 92  Ala.  82 211 

Johnson  v  Welsh 42  W.  Va.  IS 2 

Johnston  v  Commonwealth 22  Pa.  8(.  102 772 

Johnston  v  Hughes 187  N.  Y.  440 472 

Johnston  v  People 31  111.  469 770 

Jones  V  Brooklyn  B.  &  W.  E.  R.Co.  21  St.  Re.  (N.  Y.)  169 896 

Jones  V  Gary 6  Me.  448 314,  328 

Jones  V  Harris 1  Strobh.  Law  (S.  Car.)  160 902 

Jones  V  Sacramento  Ave.  Method- 
ist l':piscopal  Church 198  111.  626 315 

Jones  V  State 28  Neb.  495 323 

Jones  V  Towne 58  N.  H.  462 453,  462 

Jones    V    Trustees    of    Mt.    Zion 

Church 30  La.  Ann.  711 11 

Jones  V  Wadsworth 11  Phila.  (Pa.)  227 585 

Jones  V  Watford. 62  N.  J.  Eq.  339 730 

Joidon  V  Universalist  Central  Con- 
vent ion  Trustees 107  Va.  79 865 

Judefind  v  State 78  Md.  510 782 

Juker    V    Commonwealth    ex    rel 

Fisher 20  Pa.  St.  484 238,  871 

Karoly  v  Hungarian  Ref.  Church.  83  N.  J.  Eq.  514 698 

Karwisch  v  Mayor,  etc.,  Atlanta.  44  Ga.  205 767 

Katzer  v  Milwaukee 104  Wis.  16 659 

Kaufman  v  Hamm 30  Mo.  387 775 

Kavanagh's  Will,  Matter  of 125  N.  Y.  418 891 

Kehoe  v  Kehoe 12  Abb.  N.  C.  427n, 476 

Keiper's  Estate 5  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  568 576,  882 

Keith    V    Congregational    Parish, 

Easton 21  Pick.  (Mass.)  261 437 

Keith  V  Tuttle 28  Me.  327 774 

Kellogg  V  Dickinson 18  Vt.  266 451 

Kelly  V  Nichols 18  R.  I.  62 74 

Kemnierer  v  Kemmerer 233  111.  327 491 

Kemp  V  Wickes 3  Phill.  (Eng.)  276 122 

Kennedy  v  Le  Movne 188  111.  255 556 

Kenrick  v  Cole .  .' 61  Mo.  572 878 

Kepner  v  Keefer 6  Watts  (Pa.)  231 775 

Ken-igan  v  Conelly 46  Atl.  (\.  J.)  227 689 

Kerrigan  v  Tabb ." 39  Atl.  701 472 

Kerr's  Appeal 89  Pa.  97 588 

Keys  V  Kevs'  Estate 217  Mo.  48 765 

Kevser  v  Stansifer 6  Ohio  363 31 

Kil)l)c  V  .\ntiain 4  Conn.  134 391 

Kidder  v  French Smith  N.  H.  155 401 

Kill)a1rick  v  Graves 51  Miss.  432 3()4 

Kiiiihall  v  Second  Congregational 

Parish,  Rowley 24  Pick.  (Mass.)  347 463 

Kincaid's  Appeal 66  Pa.  St.  420 63,  458 

KinK  V  Taylor 1  Peake's  N.  P.  (Eng.)  11 900 

Kingsl)urv  v  Brandegee 113  App.  Div.(N.  Y.)  606.. .550,  832,  880 

Kinkead  v  McKee 9  Bush.  (Ky.)  535 134,  484 

Kinney  v  Kinney 86  Ky.  610 365 

Kinney  v  State 38  Ala.  224 204 

Kisor  Appeal 62  Pa.  428 530 

Kisor  v  Stansifer,  Wright N.  P.  (Ohio)  323 161 


xwiv  TAinj;  (H'  CASIOK 

Klix  V  St.  Stanislaus  Climcli  Hi?  Mo.  App.  TMT 

113,  «(Xi,  ()<)7,  009,  Oi:i,  659 

Klopp  V  Moore (\  Kan.  27 810 

Knapp  V  FarishionerH  of  St.  Mary 

VVillesdon "    2  RobertHon  Ecr.  Rp.  (Eng.)  365, 

3(J9 461 

Knight  V  ProsH  Co 227  Fa.  185 772 

Kninht's  Estate 159  Pa.  5(X) 268,  590 

Knights  V  Brown 93  Me.  557 779 

Kniskern  v  Lutheran  Ch 1  Sandf.  Ch.  CS.  Y.)  439 

215,307,526,811 

Kramer  v  Marks 64  Pa.  8t.  151 57 

Krauezuna.s  y  Hoban 221  Pa.  213 666,  681 

Krecker  v  Shirey 163  Pa.  534 

110,  178,  226,  243,  247  (2),  540,  636 

Kreglo  V  Fulk 3  W.  Va.  74 357,  807 

Kulinski  v  Dambrowski 29  Wi.s.  109 822 

Kuns  V  Robertson 154  111.  394 142,  862 

Kupfer  V  South  Parish,  Augusta.  .    12  M:i.ss.  185 434 

Ladd  V  Clements 4  Cush.  (Mass.)  476 235,  639 

Laight  St.  Church  v  Noe 12  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.)  497 806 

Lamb  v  Cain 129  Ind.  486 

139, 152,  157,  523,  852,  859 

Re  Lampson 161  N.  Y.  511 891 

Lancaster  v  State 53  Ala.  398 2a5 

Landers    v    Frank    St.    Church, 

Rochester 97  N.  Y.  119,  114  N.  Y.  626 

10,  349.  602 

Landis  Appeal 102  Pa.  St.  467 329,  330 

Landis  v  Campbell 79  Mo.  433 133,  295 

Landrith  v  Hudgins 121  Tenn.  556 

111,  161, 191, 192, 193, 194  (2),  195 
Lane  v  Calvary  Church  of  Sum- 
mit, N.  J 59  N.  J.  Eq.  409 565 

Lane  v  Eaton 69  Minn.  141 690  (2) 

Langolf  V  Seiberlitch 2  Parsons  Equity  Cases  (Pa.)  64.  . 

19.608 
Late  Corporation  of  the  Church 
of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day 

Saints  v  U.  S 136  U.  S.  1,  140  U.  S.  665.  .89, 409,  648 

LawTence  v  Fletcher 8  Mete.  (Mass.)  153 722,  725 

Law.son  v  Kolbenson 61  III.  405 820 

Lawyer  v  Cipperly 7  Paige  Ch.  (X.  Y.)  281 614 

Layne  v  State 72  Tenn.  199 201 

Leahey  v  Williams 141  Mass.  345 662,  680 

Leblanc  v  Lemaire 105  La.  539 13 

Leete  v  Pilgrim  Cong.  Society.  .  .  14  Mo.  App.  590 40 

Left  wig  t*c  Barton,  for  the  Method- 
ist Epis.  Ch.  V  Thornton 18  la.  56 19 

Leicester  v  Fitchburg 7  Allen  (Mass.)  90 37 

Lemp  V  Raven 113  Mich.  375 853 

Lempke  v  State 171  S.  W.  (Tex.  Cr.  App.)  217 768 

Re  Lennon's  Estate 92  Pac.  870 474 

Leonard  v  Manard 1  Hall's  Sup.  Ct.  (X.  Y.)  200 895 

Lepage  v  McXamara 5  la.  124 884 

Lova.s.seur  v  Martin 11  La.  Ann.  684 417 


TABLE  OF  CASES  xxxv 

Lewis  V  Voliva 154  111.  App.  48 148,  21«j 

Liggod  V  Ladd 17  Or.  89 364,  623 

I.igonia  v  Buxton 2  Mo.  102 391 

Lindcnmuller  v  People 33  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  548 

99,  596,  648,  766  (2) 

Linn  v  Carson 32  Gratt.  (Va.)  170 5 

Littl(>  V  Bailey 87  111.  239 819 

Livingston  v  Trinity  Ch.  Trenton.   45  N.  J.  Law  230.  .  .  149,  454,  551,  569 

Logan  V  Mathew.s 6  Pa.  St.  417 784 

Londoner  v  Lichten 11  Mo.  App.  385 898 

Long  V  Harvov 177  Pa.  St.  473 198  (2) 

Lord  V  Marvin 1  Root  (Conn.)  330 794 

Lord  Cornwallis  and  Hoylo  (Mich. 

6  Geo.  1) Fort.  (Eng.)  373 774 

Love  V  State 35  Tex.  Cr.  Re.  27 204 

Love  V  WelLs 25  Ind.  503 760 

Lovejoy  v  Whipple 18  \'t.  379 775 

L  o  V  o  t  t  v  C!  o  r  m  a  n  Reformed 

Church 12  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  67 418 

Luca-s  V  Case 9  Bush.  (Ky.)  297 296,  323 

Ludlow    V    Rector,    etc.,    of    St. 

Johns  Ch 68  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  400 543 

Lunsford  and  Withi'ow  Company 

V  Wren 64  W.  Va.  458 18 

Lutheran  Congiegation  Pine  Hill 

V  St.     Michael's     Evangelical 

Church 48  Pa.  St.  20 697,  702 

Lynch  v  Pfeiffer 110  N.  Y.  33 873 

Lynd  v  Menzios 33  N.  J.  Law  162 386,  563,  564 

Lyon  V  Strong 6  Vt.  219 779 

Lvons  V  Planters  Loan  and  Sav- 

'ings  Bank 86  Ga.  485 535 

Mace  V  Putnam 71  Me.  238 752,  754 

Mack  Appeal 71  Conn.  122 78,  80 

Mack  V  Kime 129  Ga.  1 145,  191,  192,  193, 

195,  225,  323  (2),  521,  524,  625 
MacKenzio    v    Trustees    of    Pres- 
bytery of  .Jersey  City 67  N.  J.  Eq.  652 505 

Madison   Avenue   Baptist    C'hurch 

v  Baptist  Ch.  in  Oliver  St 46  N.  Y.  131,  73  N.  Y.  82.  .  .537,  538 

Magie  v  German  Evang.   Dut(^h 

Church 13  N.  .J.  Eq.  77 418 

Magill  v  Brown Fed.  Cas.  No.  S,  952  (U.  S.  Cir.  Ct. 

Pa.)  (Brightly  N.  P.  347) 

71,2()4,  267,  644,  676,  879 
Maine    Baptist    Missionary    Con- 
vention V  Portland ....'. 65  Mo.  92 36 

Males  V  Murray 7  0.  Nisi  Prius  Re.  614 846 

Malone  et  al  Trustees  v  Lacroix .  .    144  Ala.  648 534 

Mancini,  Matter  of 89  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  83 281 

Mann  v  MuUin 84  Pa.  St.  297 829 

Manning  v  Moscow  Presbyterian 

Soc 27  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  52 416 

Manning  v  Shoemaker 7  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  375 248,  328 

Mannix  v  County  Commissioners.    9  Oiiio  Dec.  18 795 

Mannix  v  Pureed 40  Ohio  St.  102 6(>4,  682 


xxxvi  tabu:  of  caheh 

Mapes  V  Home  Misaionary  Society  33  Hun  (N.  Y)  360 22 

Marie  M.  E.  Church  of  Chicago.  .   253  111.  21 130,  224 

Marion  v  Evangelical  Creed  Cong. 

Milwaukee 1.32  Wi.s.  6.50 139,  245,  298,  526 

Martin   v   Board   of    Directors   of 
Cennan    Reformed    Church    of 

Wasliin^ton  County 149  Wi.s.  19 605 

Martin  v  State 6  Baxter  (Tenn.)  234 214 

Marx  V  McGlynn 88  N.  Y.  357 888 

Mason  V  Lee 96  Mis-s.  ISG 387 

Mavberrv  v  Mead 80  Me.  27 611 

Mayer  v  Temple  Beth  El 52  St.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  638 459 

Mazaika  v  Krauczunas 233  Pa.  138 666 

McAdoo  V  State 35  S.  W.  (Tex.  Ct.  of  Crim.  .4pp.) 

966 207 

McAlister  v  Burgess 161  Mass.  269    36 

McAllister  v  McAllister 46  Vt.  272 350 

McAuley's  Appeal 77  Pa.  397 502,  524,  588 

McAuley  v  Billenger 20  John.  (N.  Y.)  89 7-33 

McAvoy,  Matter  of 112  A.  D.  (N.  Y.)  377 479,  795 

McBride  v  Porter 17  la.  204 28,  532,  864 

McCabe  v  Father  Matthews 24  Hun.  (N.  Y.)  149 751 

McCall,     Little     v     Presbyterian 

Church,  Florence,  Ex  Parte 68  S.  C.  489 62,  284 

McCartee  v  Orphan  Asylum  So- 
ciety     9  Cowan  (N.  Y.)  437 84 

McClary  v  Lowell 44  Vt.  116 786 

McCusker,  Matter  of 47  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  113.  .  .  .114,  795 

McDaniel  v  State 63  S.  E.  919 652 

McDonald  v  Fernald 68  N.  H.  171 758 

McDonald  v  Gray 11  la.  508 741 

McDonald  v  Massachusetts  Gen- 
eral Hospital 120  Mass.  432 608 

McEh-oy  V  State 25  Tex.  507 208 

McEntee  v  Bonacum 66  Neb.  651 440 

McEvov,  Re 6  Dem.  Sur.  (X.  Y.)  71 475 

McGatrick  v  Wason 4  Ohio  St.  566 767,  769 

McGhee  v  Lose 22  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  371 813 

McGinnis  v  Watson 41  Pa.  St.  9 527,  623,  637 

McGlade'.s  Appeal 99  Pa.  St.  338 .  .891 

McGrath  v  Merw^in 112  Mass.  467 769 

McHugh  V  McCole 97  Wis.  166 475 

M'llvain  v  Christ  Church,  Read- 
ing   8  Phila.  (Pa.)  507 870 

Mcintosh  V  Lee .57  la.  356 764 

McKee  v  Jones 67  Miss.  405 779 

McKinney  v  Griggs 5  Bush.  (Kv.)  401 366,  693 

McLain  v  Matlock 7  Ind.  525 641.  654 

McMillen's  Appeal,  Re 11  Wklv.  Notes  of  Cas.  (Pa.)  440.  .889 

McNabb  v  Pond 4  Brad.'  (N .  Y.)  7 455 

McNair,  Ex  Parte 13  Neb.  195 54 

McQuire  v  St.  Patricks  Cathedral .   .54  Hun  (N.  Y.)  207 668 

McRoberts  v  Moudy 19  Mo.  App.  26 33,  83 

McVea  v  State 35  Tex.  Crim.  1 208 

Meader  v  White 66  Me.  90 768 

Melvin  v  Easley 7  Jones  Law  Rep.  (N.  C.)  356 780 


TABLE  OF  CASES  xxxvii 

Mercer  Home  for  Disabled  Clergy- 
men of  the  Presbyterian  Faith,  Re  162  Pa.  St.  232 493 

Meriwether  v  Smith 44  Ga.  o41 756 

Morriam  v  Stearns 10  Cush.  (Mass.)  2.57 764 

Merrill  v  Downs 41  N.  H.  72 755 

Menitt  V  Earle 29    N.    Y.    115,    Aff'g.    31    Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  38 753 

Methodist  Episcopal  Ch.,  Newark 

V  Clark 41  Mich.  730 807 

Methodist  Episcopal  Ch.,  South  v 

Clifton 34  Tex.  Civ.  App.  248 364 

Methodist  Episcopal  Ch.,  South  v 

Hinton 92  Tenn.  188 369 

Methodist  Episcopal  Chiu*ch,  Sun 

Prairie  v  Sherman .   36  Wis.  404 737 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Cin- 
cinnati V  Wood 5  Ohio  283 699 

M.E.  Society,  Matter  of,  v  Perry...  51  Hun  (N.  Y.)  104 601,634,821 

Methodist    Protestant    Church    v 

Bennett 39  Conn.  293 371 

Meyers  v  Baker 120  111.  567 57 

MicheLs  v  Rustemeyer 20  Wash.  597 737 

Miller  v  Ahrens .' 150  Fed.  644 729 

Miller  v  Childs 120  Mich.  639 570 

MiUer  v  Church 4  Phila.  (Pa.)  48 818 

Miller  v  EngUsh 21  N.  J.  Law  317 612,  639,  812 

Miller  v  Eschbach 43  Md.  1 236 

Miller  v  Gable 10  Paige  (N.  Y.)  627 147,  273 

MiUer  v  Gable 2  Denio  (N.  Y.)  492 274,  597,  585 

Miller  v  Milligan 6  Ohio  Dec.  1000 37 

Miller  v  Porter 53  Pa.  St.  292 69 

Miller  v  Roessler 4  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  234 779 

Miller  v  Teachout 24  Ohio  St.  525 887 

Miller    v    Trustees    of    Mariner's 

Church 7  Me.  51 899 

MiUiard  v  Board  of  Education.  .  .    121  111.  297 712 

Minter  v  State 104  Ga.  743 246 

Missionary    Society    Meth.    Epis. 

Ch.  V  Calvert 32  Gratt.  (Va.)  357 350 

Missionarv    Society    Meth.    Epis. 

Ch.  V  Chapman 128  Mass.  265 350 

Mohney  v  Clark 26  Pa.  342 99,  773 

Montague     v     Inhabitants     First 

Parish  in  Dedhani 4  Mass.  269 440 

Montgomery  v  Johnson 9  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  232 453 

Montgomery  v  Wahon Ill  Ga.  840 814 

Moore  v  xMonroe 64  Ga.  367 713 

Moore  v  Rector  St.  Thomas 4  Abb.  N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  51 .   .569,  615.  820 

Moore  v  Tavlor 147  Pa.  481 866 

Moran  v  Moran 104  la.  216 472 

Morasse  v  Brochu 151  Mass.  567 679 

Morgan  v  Gabard 58  So.  (Ala.)  902 195,  285 

Morris  Executors  v  Morris  Devi- 
sees   48  W.  Va.  430 892 

Morris  Street    Baptist  Church   v 
Dart 67  S.  C.  338 32, 132,289 


xx.wiii  TAHU:  Ol"  ("ASEH 

Morris  v  State 84  Ala.  457 llo 

Morion  V  Olostcr 46  Me.  520 755 

Morvillf  V  Fowlc 144  Mass.  W.i 90,  840 

MoHclcv  V  Hatch U)H  Miiss.  ol? 745 

Moss  V  Stntc I7:i  S.  W.  ClVnn.)  859 758 

Mount  V  'l\iltl(' 1H;j  N.  V.  :i.'>8 836 

Mount  ("alvarv  Churcli  v  Alhcrs .  .    174  Mo.  :«! 803 

Mt.  Helm  Hap'tist  Church  v  Jones.    79  Mi.ss.  488 36,  133 

Mt.  Zion  Baptist  Church  v  Whit- 

morc 83  la.  138 35,  284,  636 

Muck  V  Hitdicock 212  N.  V.  2H;{ rA() 

Muck  V  Hitchcock 149  A.  I).  (\.  Y.)  323 r,-22 

Muckcnfuss  V  State .').'■)  Tex.  (V.  Re.  229 7C.(> 

Mueller  v  State 70  Ind.  310 7.'>2 

Mulrov  V  Churchman 52  la.  238 iHWt,  794 

Murphy  v  DalUun 1  Bland.  Ch.  (Md.)  529 $93 

Murray  v  Commonwealth 24  Pa.  270 751 

Mussey  v  Bulfinch  Street  Society  1  Cush.  (Ma.ss.)  148 866 

Muzzy  V  Wilkins Smith's  N.  H.  Rep.  1 109, 

185,  197,  282,  482,  .590,  .593,  617,  795 
Myers     v     Baptist     Society     of 

Jamaica ' 38  Vt.  614 10 

Myers  v  First  Presbyterian 

Chui-ch,  Perry 5  Okla.  809 499 

Also  11  Okla.  544 13,  396 

Nace  Appeal 11  Leg.  Rec.  (Pa.)  41 246 

Nance  v  Bushby 91  Tenn.  303 149, 

164,  319,  323,  326,  327,  515,  532,  533 

Nash  V  Sutton 117  N.  Car.  231 821 

Neale    v    Vestry    of    St.     Paul's 

Church 8  GUI.  (Md.)  116 638 

Neely  v  Hoskins 84  Me.  386 826 

Neill  V  Spencer 5  111.  App.  461 9 

NeiLson's  Appeal 105  Pa.  180 558 

Nelson  v  Benson 69  111.  27 428,  693 

Neuendorflf  v  Duryea 69  N.  Y.  557 765 

New  Ebenezer  A.ssociation  v  Gress 

Lumber  Company 89  Ga.  125 634,  808 

Newman  v  Proctor 73  Ky.  318 368 

Newman,  Ex  Parte 9  Cal.  502 .783 

New  Market  Savings  Bank  v  Gillet  100  111.  2.54 819 

New  South  Meeting  House,  Bos- 
ton. Re 13  Allen  (Mass.)  497 636 

New  Thought  Church  v  Chapin . .    1.59  A.  D.  723 424 

Xiccolls  V  Rugg 47  111.  47 485,  527, 870 

Xiebuhr  v  Piersdorff 24  Wis.  316 457 

Noble  V  People 1  111.  54  (Breese,  Beecher) 899 

Nobili  y  Redman 6  Cal.  325 667 

Noftsker  y  Commonwealth 22  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  559 760 

Northampton  County  v  St.  Peter's 

Church.  . 5  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  416 797 

North   Baptist  Church  v   Parker 

&  others . 36  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  171 823 

North  Carolina  Christian  Confer- 
ence y  Allen 156  N.  C.  524 182 

North  V  Dick.son 1  Hagg.  Eccles.  Rep.  (Eng.)  310.  .202 


tabu:  of  (  asi:s  xxxLv 

North  Presbyterian  Church,  Chi- 
cago V  Jevne,  et  al 32  III.  214 417 

Northrup  v  Foot 14  W^end.  (N.  Y.)  248 780 

North  8t.  Louis  Christian  Church 

V  McGowan 62  Mo.  279 96,  606 

Northwaite  v  Bennett 2Crompt.&MeesonsRc.(Eng.)316. 126 

Norton  y  Ladd 4  N.  H.  444 898 

Norwegian  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Bethlehem  Cong,  v  U.  S.  Fidel- 
ity &  Guaranty  Co 81  Minn.  32 3 

Novickv  V  Krauczunius 245  Pa.  86 ti66 

Nye  V  Whit teinore 193  Mass.  208 729 

Oakes  v  Hill 10  Pick.  (Mass.)  333 .591,  .S72 

O'Connor  v  CiifToni 117  N.  Y.  275 475 

O'Connor  v  Hendrick 184  N.  Y.  421 ()2t) 

Odell  V  Odell 10  Allen  (Mass.)  1 833 

O'Donnell's  Estate 209  Pa.  63 478 

O'Donnell  v  Sweeney 5  Ala.  467 774 

O'Donovan  v  Chatard 97  Ind.  421 681 

O'Hara  v  Stack 90  Pa.  St.  477,  Appeal  98  Pa.  SI . 

213 145,396,680 

O'Hear  v  De  Goesbriand 33  Vt.  593 447,  448,  739 

Olcott  V  Gabert 86  Tex.  121 663 

Order  of  St.  Benedict  of  New  Jer- 
sey V  Steinhauser 179  Fed.    (Minn.)    137,   34  S.   Ct. 

(U.S.  Sup.)  932 173 

Ormichund  v  Barker 1  Wilson  K.  B.  (Eng.)  84 899 

Ornstein  v  ^  ahr  *  Langc  Drug  Co.  119  Wis.  429 781 

O'Rourkc  V  O'Rourke 43  Mich.  58 776 

Orthodo.x  Congregational  Chiu^ch, 

Union  Village,  Matter  of 6  Abb.  N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  398 823,  888 

Owen  V  Henman 1  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  548 202  (2) 

Owen  V  Missionary  Society 14  N.  Y.  384 77 

Pack  V  Shanklin 43  W.  Va.  304 497 

Paddock  v  Brown 6  Hill  (N.  Y.)  530 373,  813 

Page  V  O'Sullivan 159  Ky.  703 771 

Page  V  Symmonds 63  N.  H.  17 59 

Palmer  v  Mayor,  N.  Y 2  Sandf.  (N.  Y.)  318 764 

Papaliou  v  Manusas 113  111.  App.  316 279 

Parish  of  the  Immaculate  Concep- 
tion V  Murphy 87  Neb.  524 386 

Park  V  Chaplin 96  la.  55 32,  133,  250  (2) 

Parker  v  Latner 60  Mv.  528 762 

Parker  v  Leach 12  Jur.  N.  S.  (Eng.)  911 110 

Parker  v  State 16  Lea  (Tenn.)  476 750 

Parmalec  v  Wilks 22  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  539 774 

Parshley  v  Third  Meth.  Church.  .    147  N.  V.  583 812 

Parsonsfield  y  Dalton 5  Me.  217 328 

Partridge    v     First    Independent 

Church 39  Md.  637 61 

Pattee  v  Greely 13  Mete.  (Mass.)  284 750 

PauLson  Will,  Re 127  Wis.  612 619 

Payne  v  Crawford 97  Ala.  604 23 

Peabody's  E.state,  Re 154  Cal.  173 496 

Peabody  v  Eastern  Meth.  Society, 

Lynn !  .   5  Allen  (Mass.)  540 7 


xl  TAliLi:  Ol^  ("ASIOK 

Peace  v  Firnt  Christian  Church, 

McGrcRor 20  Toxjw  Civ.  App.  85 93, 96, 146 

Pearce  v  Atwood 13  Mush.  324 787 

Peckham  v  North  Parish,  Haver- 
hill      16    Pick.    (Mass.)    274,    19    Pick. 

(Mass.)  559 184,  643 

Peiffer    v    Board    of    Education, 

Detroit 118  Mich.  560 44 

Peirce  v  Hill 9  Port.  (Ala.)  151 768 

Pendleton  v  Waterloo  Bapt.  Ch.  .   49  Hun.  (N.  Y.)  596 11 

Penniman  v  Cole 8  Mete.  (Mass.)  496 761 

Penny  v  Central  Coal  and  Coke 

Company 138  Fed.  769 17,  521,  807 

People  ex  rel  Wilson  v  African  W. 

M.  E.  Church 156  A.  D.  (N.  Y.)  386 240 

Peoi)le  ex  rel  Swigert  v  Anderson .  .    1 17  111.  50 796 

People   ex   rel   Meister   v   Anshei 

Chesed  Hebrew  Cong.  Bay  City.  37  Mich.  542 309 

People  ex  rel  the  rector  v  Black- 
hurst  60  Hun  (X.  Y.)  63 431 

People  ex  rel  the  Roman  CathoUc 

Orphan    Asylum    v    Board    of 

Education 13  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  400 676 

People  V  Brown 1  Wheelers  Cr.  Cases  (N.  Y.)  124.  . 

653  654 

People  V  Busse 141  111.  App.  218 '.781 

People  V  Church  of  Atonement.  . .  48  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  603 568 

People  V  Cole 163  A.  D.  (N.  Y.)  292 103 

People  ex  rel  Hutchinson  v  Col- 

lison 22  Abb.  N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  52 798 

People  ex  rel  Peck  v  Conley 42  Hun  (N.  Y.)  98,  3  N.  Y.  S.  373.  .385 

People  V  Crowley 23  Hun  (N.  Y.)  412 202 

People  V  Degey 2  Wheeler  Cr.  C.  (N.  Y.)  135 202 

People  V  Dennis 35  Hun  (N.  Y'.)  327 749 

People  V  Dohhng 6  App.  Div.  (N.  Y\)  86 553 

People  V  Dunford 207  N.  Y\  17,  20 766 

People  V  Erste  Ulaszkoweer  Kran- 

ken  Unterstutzungs  Verein 56  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  304,  57  Misc.  62.  .151 

People  V  Farrington 22  How  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  294 26 

People  ex  rel  Thompson  v  First 

Congregational  Church 232  111.  158 797 

People  ex  rel  Cock  v  Fleming.  ...    13  N.  Y.  Supp.  715,  59  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

518 813,816 

People  ex  rel  Burke  v  Fox 205  N.  Y'.  490 759 

People  ex  rel  Fulton  v  Fulton. ...   11  N.  Y.  94 6,  813,  817 

People  ex  rel  Dilcher  v  German 

United  Evang.  Church 53  N.  Y.  103 112,  309,  610 

People  ex  rel  Fleming  v  Hart.  ...   13  N.  Y.  Supp.  903,  36  St.  Reporter 

874,  21  N.  Y.  Supp.  673 

6,235,237,311 

People  V  Haynor 149  N.  Y.  195 749 

People  V  Hoym 20  How.  Pr.  76  (Sp.  T.) 745 

People  ex  rel  Sturges  v  Keese.  ...   27  Hun  (N.  Y.)  483 870 

People  V  La  Coste 37  N.  Y.  192 237,  551 

People  ex  rel  Kielev  v  Lent  (Yon- 

kers) .' 166  A.  D.  (N.  Y.)  550 768 


TABLE  OF  CASKS  xli 

People  V  Mayor 63  N.  Y.  291 823 

People  V  McGarren 17  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  460 899 

People  V  Moses 140  N.  Y.  215 766 

People  ex  rel  Bloomquist  v  Nappa.   80  Mich.  484 148 

People  ex  rel  Smith  v  Peck 11  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  604 236 

People  V  Peirson 176  N.  Y.  201 649 

People  V  Peterson 31  Hun  (N.  Y.)  421 400 

People  V.  Rochester 44  Hun  (N.  Y.)  166 691 

People  V  Ruggles 8  John.  (N.  Y.)  290 50 

People  V  Runkle 9  John.  (N.  Y.)  147. .  .  .6,  544,  812,  816 

People  V  St.  Patrick's  Cathedral.  .   21  Hun  (N.  Y.)  184 308 

People  V  Schottey 116  Mich.  1 781 

People  ex  rel  Bobach  V  Sheriff ..  .   13   iMisc.   (N.   Y.)   587,  35  N.   Y. 

Supp.  19 749 

People  V  Steele 2  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  397 145,  385 

People  ex  rel  Coppers  v  Trustees, 

St.  Patrick's  Cathedral,  N.  Y. .  .   21  Hun  (N.  Y.)  184 64,  668 

People  V  Tuthill 31  N.  Y.  550 868,  872 

People  V  Utter 44  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  170 763 

People  ex  rel  Breymeyer  v  Wat- 

seka  Camp  Meeting  A.ssociation.  160  111.  576 55 

People  ex  rel  Kenney  v  Winans.  .   29  St.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  651 312,  814 

People  ex  rel  Gore  v  Young  Men's 

Christian  Association 157  111.  403 799 

Peoples  Bank  v  St.  Anthony's  Ro- 
man Catholic  Church .........    109  N.  Y.  512 61 1 ,  676,  813,  815 

Permanent  Committee  of  Missions 

V  Pacific  Synod 157  Cal.  105 195 

Perrin  v  (h-anger 33  Vt.  101 448 

Perry  v  Commonwealth 3  Gratt.  (Va.)  632 897 

Perry  v  McEwen 22  Ind.  440 292 

Perry  v  ^^'hccler 75  Ky.  541 564 

Perry's  Adm.  v  Stewart 2  Har.  (Del.)  37 901 

Peterson  v  Christianson 18  S.  D.  470 530 

Peterson  v  Samuelson 42  Neb.  161 706 

Petty  V  State 58  Ark.  1 768 

Petty  V  Tooker 21  N.  Y.  271 605 

Philadelphia,  Wilmington  &  Balti- 
more R.  R.  Co.  V  Lehman 56  Md.  209 753 

Phillips  V  Harrow 93  la.  92 883 

Philomath  College  v  Wyatt 27  Or.  390 142,  166,  859,  862 

Phipps  V  Jones 20  Pa.  260 738 

Phoenix    Insurance    Company    v 

Burkett 72  Mo.  App.  1 194 

Pinke  v  Bornhold 8  Ont.  L.  Re.  575 320 

Plaisted  v  Pahner 63  Me.  576' 775 

Plattsmouth  First  National  Bank 

V  Rector 59  Neb.  77 845 

Pleasant  Grove  Cong,  v  Riley 248  111.  604 195 

Ponce  V  Roman  Catholic  Church  .   210  U.  S.  296 

669,  677,  678,  678,  683,  686 

Pope  V  Linn 50  Me.  83 774 

Porter  v  Pierce 120  N.  Y.  217 778 

Pounder  v  Ashe 44  Nebr.  Re .  672 ..  .  131,  155,  534,  647 

Powers  V  Bundy 45  Neb.  208 131,  155 

Poynter  v  Phelps 129  Ky.  381 34 


xlii  TAIiU:  OK  <"ASIOK 

Pratt    V   Iloiniin  (.'atholii-  ()r|)h:iri 

Asylum 20  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  352 844 

PreachorH  Aid  Society  v  England .  .    KMi  ill.  12r, 345 

Prcachrrs  Aid  Society  v  Rich 45  Mo.  552 76,  346 

Prcshytorian  ('hurch  v  AndrusH.  .   21  N.  J.  Law  325 466 

Prt'-sbytfrian  Church  of  Albany  v 

C'oopor 112  N.  Y.  517 734 

Presbyterian   Church   v   Cumber- 
land Church 245  111.  74 136,  191,  195 

Presl)ytcrian  Church  v  Montgom- 

ery'County 3  Grant's  Gas.  (Pa.)  245 794 

Presbyterian  Congregation,  Erie  v 

Colt's  Executors 2  Grant's  Caa.  (Pa.)  75 529 

Presbyterian  Cong,  v  Johnston.  .  .    1  Watts.  &  S.  (Pa.)  9 501 

Presbyterian  Society  v  Beach.  ...    74  N.  Y.  72 735,  740 

Prickett  v  Wells 117  Mo.  Re.  502 93, 139,  642 

Princeton  v  Adams 10  Cush.  (Mass.)  129 885 

Proprietors  v  Pierpont 48  Mass.  496 128 

Proprietors  Union  Meeting  House 

V  Rowell 66  Me.  400 453 

Prosser  v  Secor 5  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  607 400 

Protestant    Episcopal    Education 

Society  v  Churchman's  Reports.   80  Va.  718 571 

Provenchee  v  Piper 68  N.  H.  31 751 

Puckctt  V  Commonwealth 107  Va.  844 761 

Pulis  V  Iserman 71  N.  J.  Law  408 581 

Rainey  v  Capps 22  Ala.  288 764 

Ramsey  Appeal 88  Pa.  St.  60 513 

Ramsey  v  Hicks 44  Ind.  App.  490 195 

Read  v  Boston  &  Albany  R.  R. 

Company 140  Mass.  199 777 

Read  v  Hodgens 7  Ir.  Eq.  17 470 

Read  v  St.  Ambrose  Ch 6  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  76 553 

Rector,  etc.,  v  Blackhurst 11  N.  Y.  Supp.  669 16 

Rector,  Church  of  the  Redeemer  v 

Crawford 43  N.  Y.  476 542,  739,  804 

Rector,    St.  James   Ch.  v    Hunt- 
ington    82  Hun  (N.  Y.)  125 140,  559 

Rector,  etc.,  Christ  Church  v  Rec- 
tor,  etc.,   Church  of  the  Holy 

Communion 14  Phila.  (Pa.)  61 631 

Rector,  etc.,  Church  of  the  Redemp- 
tion V  Rector,  etc.,  Grace  Church  68  N.  Y.  570 841 

Reeves  v  Walker 8  Baxt.  (Tenn.)  277 256 

Reformed   Church,    Gallupville   v 

Schoolcraft 65  N.  Y.  134 522,  581 

Reformed  Methodist  Society  Doug- 
las V  Draper 97  Mass.  349 818 

Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  v 

Brown ' 24  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  76 741 

Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  of 

the  City  of  N.  Y.,  Re 7  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  476 61,  6:i 

Reformed  Protestant  Dutch 

Church  of  Albany  v  Bradford.  .   8  Cowan  (N.  Y.)  457 12.  l.")ti 

Reformed  Protestant   Dutch 

Ch.  V  Veeder 4  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  497 544 


tabu:  of  (ASKS                               xliii 

lleR.  V  Haslrhurst 13  Q.  B.  D.  (Knu.)  253 618 

Rdnkc  V  (W'rniaii  I'^vang.  Lutheran 

Trinity  Church 17  S.  Dak.  262 609,  609 

Reis  V  Rohdc 34  Hun  (N.  Y.)  161 820 

ReHgious  Congregational  Society, 

Bakersfield  v  Baker 15  Vt.  119 17 

R  e  o  r  g  a  n  i  z  ed  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints  v 

Church  of  Christ 60  Fed.  Rep.  937 411,  415,  527 

Revere  v  Gannett 1  Pick.  (Mass.)  169 535 

Rex  V  Bosworth 2  Str.  (Eng.)  1113 41,  42,  98,  430 

Rex  V  Brotherton 1  Str.  (Eng.)  702 750 

Rex  V  Cox 2  Burr.  (Eng.)  785 747 

Rex  V  Jotham 3  T.  Rop.  (Eng.)  577 311 

Rex  V  Mayor  of  Lincoln 5  Mod.  (Eng.)  400 265 

Rex  V  Wasyl  Kapij 15  Manitoba  Re.  121 389,  700 

Rex  V  Whitnash 1  Man.  &  Ry.  (Eng.)  452 764 

Rex  V  WooLston 2  Str.  (Eng.)  834 50,  98 

Rex  V  Younger 5  T.  Rep.  (Eng.)  449 747 

Reynolds  v  Bristow 37  Ga.  283 892 

Reynolds  v  Monkton 2  M.  &  Rob.  (Eng.)  384 447 

Reynolds  v  U.  S 98  U.  S.  145 625 

Rhymer's  Appeal 93  Pa.  St.  142 479,  889 

Rice  V  Commonwealth 3  Bush.  (Ky.)  14 762 

Richards  v  The  Northwest  Prot- 
estant Dutch  Church 32  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  42 59,  61 

Richardson  v  Butterfield 60  Mass.  191 603,  609 

Richard.son  v  Freeman 6  Me.  57 720 

Richardson  v  Kimball 28  Me.  463 750 

Richardson  v  State 5  Texas  Ct.  of  App.  470 202 

Richardson  v  Union  Cong.  Society.  58  N.  H.  187 314 

Richter  v  Kabat 114  Mich.  575 286 

Riffe  V  Proctor 99  Mo.  App.  601 13 

Rigney  v  White 4  Daly  (N.  Y.)  400 760 

Rittenhouse  Estate,  Re 140  Pa.  172 567 

Ritter  v  Bausman 2  Woodw.  Dec.  (Pa.)  248 65 

Roberta  v  State  Treasurer 2  Root  (Conn.)  381 391 

Robertson  v  Bullions 9  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  64,  aff'd.  11  N.  Y. 

243 378,  637,  809,  823,  835 

Robeson  v  French 12  Met.  (Mass.)  24 779 

Robinson  v  Cochim 18  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  325 386,  398 

Rodgers  v  Burnett 108  Tenn.  173 149,  249,  700 

Rogers  v  l^liot f 146  Mass.  349 40 

Rose  V  Vert  in 46  Mich.  457 661 

Rosenberg  v  Arrowsmith 89  A.  (N.  J.)  524 768 

Roshi's  Appeal 69  Pa.  462 273,  642,  698 

Ross  V  Crockett 14  La.  Ann.  811 806,  814 

Roth  V  Hax 68  Mo.  App.  283 772 

RotLschild  V  Darien 69  Ga.  503 769 

Rottman  v  liartling 22  Nebr.  375 163 

Rouser's  Estate,  Re 8  Pa.  Sup.  Ct.  188 351 

Roy  V  Rowzie 25  Gratt.  (Va.)  599 886 

Rucker  v  State 67  Miss.  328 762 

Ruggles  V  Kimball 12  Mass.  337 401 

Russie  V  Brazzell 128  Mo.  93 861 

Ryan  v  Cudahy 157  111.  108 322 


xliv  TM'AA-:  Ol'  ("ASi:S 

Ryjin  V  Duiizilhi 8(5  At  1.  (Pa.)  1089 110 

St.  Andrews  Ch.  v  S(;huunosHy .  .  .    63  Nob.  792 107,  534,  675 

St.  Ann's  Church,  Matter  of 23  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  285 539 

St.  James  Church  v  Church  of  the 

Redeemer 45  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  356 .5fJ7 

St.   Louis   Inst,  of  Christian  Sci- 

(>nc(>,  Re 27  Mo.  App.  633 104,  1 19 

St.  Patricks  v  Abst 76  111.  252 117,  684 

St.  Paul's  Church,  Re 30  Pa.  St.  I.'i2 531,  555 

St.  Paul's  Ch.  V  Ford 34  Barb.  (\.  Y.)  16 465 

St.  Paul's  Ref.  Ch.  v  Hower 191  Pa.  St.  306 274,  527 

St.  Vincents  Parish  v  Murphy 83  Neb.  630 387,  679 

Sage,  etc.  Committee  of  the  First 

Society,  Chatham  v  White.  ....  2  Root  (Conn.)  Ill 869 

Sale     V     First     Regular     Baptist 

Church 62  Iowa  26 310,  610 

Salter  v  Burt 20  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  205 747 

Saltman  v  Nesson 201  Mass.  534 308 

Saltraarsh  v  Tuthill 13  Ala.  390 750 

Samuels  v  Cong.  Kol.  Israel  Anshi 

Poland 52  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  287 459 

Sanders  v  Baggerly 131  S.  W.  49  (Ark.) 195 

Sanders  v  Johnson 29  Ga.  526 776 

Sandiman  v  Breach 7  Barn.  &  Cres.  96 782 

Sanger  v  Inhabitants  in  Roxbury .    8  Mass.  265 556 

Santos  V  Roman  Catholic  Church.   212  U.  S.  463 677 

Sargent  B'd  of  Education  (Roch- 
ester)     177  N.  Y.  317 676,  708 

Satterlo  v  U.  S 20  App.  D.  C.  393 

226,  229,  232,  394,  552 
Saugerties  Reformed  Dutch 

Church,  Matter  of 16  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  239 450,  458 

Saxton  V  Mit(;hell 78  Pa.  St.  479 54 

Sayles  v  Smith 12  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  57 761 

Scanlan,  Matter  of 57  L.  J.  Ch.  (Eng.)  718 281 

Schilstra  v  Van  Den  Heuvel 82  N.  J.  Eq.  612 574 

Schlichter  v  Keiter 156  Pa.  St.  119 862 

Schnorr's  Appeal 67  Pa.  138 699 

Schoonmaker  v  Ref.  Dutch  Church 

of  Kingston 5  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  265 59 

Schradi  v  Dornfcld 52  Minn.  46.') 301,  525 

Sclniber  v  Rapp 5  Watts  (Pa.)  351 169 

Schwartz  v  Bruder 6  Dem.  (N.  Y.)  169 475 

Schwartz  v  Duss 93  Fed.  529,  187  U.  S.  8 170 

Schweiker  v  Hus.ser 146  111.  399 11,  247,  397 

Scofield  V  Eighth  School  District .   27  Conn.  499 694 

Scott  V  Hooper 14  Vt.  535 902 

Scott  V  Thompson 21  la.  599 411 

Sears  v  Attorney  General 193  Mass.  551 573 

Second   Baptist   Society,   Canaan, 

N.  Y.,  Matter  of 20  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  324 

464,535,538,540 
Second     Congregational     Society, 

Northbridgewater  v  Waring.  ...  24  Pick.  (Mass.)  304.  466 

Second    Meth.    Episcopal   Church 

of  Greenwich  v  Humphrey 10  St.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  167  6.38 


TABLE  OF  CASES  xlv 

Seda  V  Ruble 75  la.  429 76,  689 

Sedgwick,  etc.  v  Pierce 2  Root  (Conn.)  431 801 

Seiberts  Appeal 18  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  276 473 

SeUers  Chapel  Meth.  Church,  Re.  .    139  Pa.  St.  61 540 

Sentinel  Co.  v  Motor  Wagon  Co.  .    144  Wis.  224 772 

Sexton  V  B'd.  Excise  Com'rs.,  As- 

bury  Park 76  N.  J.  L.  102 55 

Shaeffer  v  Klee 100  Md.  264 166,  302 

Shannon  v  Frost 42  Ky.  253 149,  151,  319,  532 

Shapleigh  v  PiLsbury 1  Me.  271 468 

Sharp  V  Benton 23  Ky.  Law  Rep.  876 530 

Sharp  V  Bonham 213  F.  (Tenn.)  660 195 

Shaw  V  Beveridge 3  HiU  (N.  Y.)  26 466 

Shaw  V  Dodge 5  N.  H.  462 760 

Shaw  V  Moore 49  N.  C.  25  (4  Jones) 902 

Sheldon  v  Cong.  Parish,  Easton .  .   24  Pick.  (Mass.)  281. ..219,  378,  393,  401 

Sheldon  v  Vail 28  Hun  (N.  Y.)  354 448,  822 

Sherman  v  Baker 20  R.  I.  446 474,  790 

Sherman  v  Roberts 1  Grant's  Cas.  (Pa.)  261 784 

ShotweU  V  Mott 2  Sandf.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  46 834,  838 

Shoup,  Ex  parte 9  Ohio  Dec.  648 697 

Shreveport  v  Levy 26  La.  Ann.  671 620 

Shuman  v  Shuman 27  Pa.  St.  90 758 

Silsby  V  Barlow 16  Gray  (Mass.)  329 109,  435 

Simmons  v  Burrell 8  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  388 890 

Simpson  v  Welcome 72  Me.  496 77 

Skilton  V  Webster Brightly  N.  P.  (Pa.)  203.. .226,  508,  705 

Skinner    v    Grace    Church,    Mt. 

Clemens.  . 54  Mich.  543 567 

Skinner    v    Richardson,    Boynton 

&  Co 76  Wis.  464 20 

Smith  V  Bonhoof 2  Mich.  115 464 

Smith  V  Bowers 57  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)  252,  Aff'd. 

171  N.  Y.  669 327,875(2) 

Smith  V  Charles 24  So.  968 153 

Smith  V  Erb 4  GiU.  (Md.)  437 236,  239,  312 

Smith  V  Foster 41  N.  H.  215 757 

Smith  V  Nelson 18  Vt.  511 142,  222,  223  (2), 

226,  230  (2),  231,  375,  513,  634,  705 

Smith  et  al  V  Pedigo  et  al 145  Ind.  361 32, 135,  528,  636 

Smith  V  Swormstedt 16  How.  (U.  S.)  288 363 

Smith  V  Wilcox 24  N.  Y.  353 771 

Snell  V  Trustees,  Meth.  Epis.  Chu., 

CUnton 58  111.  290 741 

Snyder  v  Nations. 5  Blackf.  (Ind.)  295 899 

Society  for  the  VLsitation  of  the 

Sick  V  Commonwealth 52  Pa.  125 763 

Society    of    the     Most    Precious 

Blood  V  Moll 51  Minn.  277 884 

Society    for    the    Propagation    of 

the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts  v 

Town  of  New  Haven 8  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  464 71 

Society    of    Shakers    at     Pleasant 

Hill  V  Watson 68  Fed.  730 726 

Sohier  v  Trinitv  Church 109  Miuss.  1 66,  450,  565 

Solomon  v  Cong.  B'nai  Jesurun.  .   49  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  263.  .291,  447,  462 


xlvi  TABLK  OF  (ASKS 

Soltau  V  De  H(!ld 9  Eng.  L.  &  Eg.  104 39 

South  l^iii)tiHt  Society  v  C;ia|)p,  .  .  18  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  35 417,418 

South     New     Market     Methodist 

SeiniiKiry  v  Peaslee 15  N.  H.  317 881 

Southwick  V  New  York  Christian 

Missioiuiry  Society 151  A.  D.  116;  afT'd.211  N.  Y.515.  .370 

Sparhawk  v  Union  Passenger  Rjiil- 

way  Company 54  T'a.  St .  401 777 

Sparrow  v  Wood 16  Ma.ss.  457 868 

Spead  V  Toudinson 73  N.  H.  46 ia3 

Speoht  V  CJommon wealth 8  Pa.  Sf .  312 781 

Speidel  v  Ilenrici 120  I'.  S.  377 170 

Spencer  v  Joint  School  District.  .  .  15  Kan.  259 694 

Spiller  V  Woburn 12  Allen  (Mass.)  127 714 

Spiritual  &  Philosophical  Temple 

V  Vincent 105  N.  W.   (Sup.  Ct.  Wis.)   1026, 

127  Wis.  93 327,728 

Splane  v  Commonwealth 9  Sad.  (Sup.  Ct.  Cas.  Pa.)  201 .  .  .  .782 

Spooner  v  Brewster 10  Moores  Rep.  (Eng.)  494 66 

Stack  V  O'Hara 98  Pa.  213 679,  680 

Stackpole  v  Symonds 23  N.  H.  229 756 

Stafford  v  State 154  Ala.  71 201 

Stanley  v  Colt 5  Wall.  (U.  S.)  119 543 

Stanton  v  Camp 4  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  274 2 

Stanton  v  Metropolitan  R.  R.  Co.  14  Allen  (Mass.)  485 786 

Stark  V  Backus 140  Wis.  557 748 

State  e.x  rel  Hay  v  Alderson 49  Mont.  387,  142  P.  210 772 

State  of  Iowa  v  Amana  Society. .  .  132  la.  304 142,  168 

State,  Church  of  the  Redeemer  v 

AxteU 41  N.  J.  L.  117 797 

State  V  Belton 24  S.  Car.  185 897 

State  e.x  rel  McNeill  v  Bibb  St. 

Church 84  Ala.  23. .  156,  228,  311,  381,  383,  625 

State  ex  rel  Baker  v  Bird 253  Mo.  569 281,  623 

State  ex  rel  Morris  v  Board  of  Trus- 
tees of  Westminster  College. .  .  .  175  Mo.  52 514 

State  V  Branner 149  N.  C.  559 214 

State  V  Bray 35  N.  C.  289 391 

State  V  Cate 58  N.  H.  240 214 

State  V  Chandler 2  Harr.  (Del.)  553 .   50 

State  V  Chenoweth 163  Ind.  94 103,  216,  579 

State  V  Collett 79  S.  W.  (.\rk.)  791 769 

State  V  Crowell 9  N.  J.  L.  391 868 

State  ex  rel  v  Cummins 171  Ind.  112 310,  397 

State  V  Dilley 145  N.  \\'.  (Neb.)  999 694 

State    ex    rel    Weiss    v    Edgerton 

District  School 76  Wis.  177,  7  L.  R.  A.  330.  .  .  .45,  71S 

State  of  Missouri  ex  rel  Watson  v 

Farris,  et  al 45  Mo.  183 131,  489 

State  V  Getty 69  Conn.  286 822 

State  V  Hallock 16  Nev.  373 714 

State  ex  rel  Soares  v  Hebrew  Cong.  31  La.  Ann.  205 285,  309,  310 

State  V  Jasper 15  N.  C.  323 202 

State  V  Jones 77  S.  C.  385 213 

State  V  Kirby 108  X.  C.  772 209 

State  V  Krech 10  Wa.sh.  166 748 


TABLE  OF  CASES  xlvii 

State  V  Linkhaw 69  N.  C.  215 214 

State  V  Lorry 66  Tenn.  95 748 

State,  First  Reformed  Dutch 

Church  V  Lyon 32  N.  J.  L.  360 585,  798 

State  V  Marble 72  Ohio  21 103 

State  V  McDonogh  Estate 8  La.  .\nn.  171 467 

State  V  Norris 59  N.  H.  536 56 

State  V  Powers 51  N.  J.  L.  432 627,  900 

State  V  Ramsay 78  N.  C.  448 :209 

State  V  Rogers 128  N.  C.  576 320 

State  V  Schevc 05  Neb.  853 

43,  46,  46,  46,  592,  595,  654,  714 

State  V  Sherwood 90  la.  550 776 

State  V  Snyder 14  Ind.  429 203 

State  V  Stewart 6  Houst.  (Del.)  359 574 

State  V  Townsend 2  Harr.  (Del.)  543 903 

State  V  Trustees 7  Ohio  St.  58 635 

State  ex  rel  Povser  v  Trustees  of 

Salem  Church 114  Ind.  389 309 

State  V  White 64  N.  H.  48 620 

State  V  Wright 41  Ark.  410 208 

State  Capital  Bank  v  Thompson.  .   42  N.  H.  369 775 

Stearns  v  Bedford 21  Pick.  (Mass.)  125 219 

Stebbins  v  Jennings 10  Pick.  (Mass.)  171 

117, 118, 181,  402,  637,  703,  801 

Stebbins  v  Leowolf 3  Cush.  (Mass.)  137 750 

Stephenson  v  Short 92  N.  Y.  433 889 

Stern's  Appeal 64  Pa.  St.  447 761 

Stewart  v  Lee 5  Del.  Ch.  573 133 

Stewart   v  Trustees  of  Hamilton 

College 2  Denio  (N.  Y.)  403 733 

Stewart  V  White 128  Ala.  202 283 

Stocks  V  Booth 1  D.  &  E.  (Eng.)  225 460 

Stogner  v  Laird 145  S.  W.  644 114 

Stokes  V  Phelps  Mission 47  Hun  (N.  Y.)  570 484,  634 

Story  V  Elliot 8  Cowan  (N.  Y.)  27 746,  758  (2) 

Stoughton  V  Reynolds 2  Strange  (Eng.)  1045 234 

Stratman  v  Commonwealth 137  Ky.  5()0 747 

Straus  V  Goldsmith 8  Sim.  (Eng.)  614 468 

Straw  V  East  Maine  Conf.  M.  E. 

Church 67  Me.  493 349 

Stryker  v  Vanderbilt 27  N.  J.  Law  Rep.  68 756 

Stubbs    V    Vestry    of    St.    John's 

Church 96  Md.  267 563,  564,  615 

Sumner  v  First  Parish  Dorchester.   4  Pick.  (Mass.)  361 437 

Sunnier  v  Jones 24  Vt .  317 776 

Suter  V  Spangler 4  Phila.  (Pa.)  331 584 

Sutter  V  Ref.  Dutch  Ch 6  Wright  (Pa.)  503 143,  580,  645 

Sutter  V  Trustees  First  Ref.  Dutch 

Church 42  Pa.  503 639 

Swann  v  Broome 3  Bur.  (Eng.)  1597 758,  759 

Swedesborough  Ch.  v  Shivers ....    16  N.  J.  Eq.  453 830 

Swoyer  v  Schaeffer 13  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  346 445 

Synod  v  State 2  S.  Dak.  366,  (14  L.  R.  A.  418) .  .  .716 

Tabernacle  Bapt.  Church  v  Fifth 

Ave.  Baptist  Church 32  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  446 542 


xlviii  TAIMJ':  Ol"  ("ASKS 

Tanner  v  Stale 12()  (;:i.  77  211 

Tarter  v  CJibbs 24  Md.  :i2:i 18,  :i2r),  422,  61.5 

Tavlor  V  Edscjn 4  Cush.  (Maas.)  522 318,  439 

Taylor  v  Morley 1  (Uirteis  fEnR.)  380 223 

Taylor  v  Youpk <)1  Win.  314 787 

Tcelo  V  Derry 1G8  Mass.  341 73 

Terrctt  v  Taylor QCranch  (U.  S.)  43.  .552,  571,  595,  625 

'i'cshmaker    v    Hundred    de   Ed- 

mington 1  Str.  (Eng.)  4()6 785 

Tharp  v  Fleming 1  Houston  (Del.)  580 834 

Thaxter  v  Jones. 4  Mass.  570 328 

Thayer  v  Felt 4  Pick.  (Mass.)  3.54 765 

Third  Meth.  Epis.  Church  in  the 

City  of  Brooklyn,  Re 67  Hun  (N.  Y.)  86 110,  605,  636 

Thompson  v  Cath.  Con.  Soc 5  Pick.  (Mass.)  469 12 

Thomjison  v  Swoope 24  Pa.  474 347,  .349 

Thompson  v  West .59  Neb.  677 814 

Thicnfoldt's  Appeal 101  Pa.  St.  186 289 

Thurmond  v  Cedar  Spring  Bap- 
tist Ch 110  Ga.  816 8,845 

Thurston  v  Whitney 2  Cash.  (Mass.)  104 •. 902 

Tillock  V  Webb .56  Me.  100 7.54 

Tobev  V  Wareham  Bank 13  Met.  (Mass.)  440 434 

Tomlin  v  Bhmt 31  lU.  App.  234 531 

Towle  V  Larrabee 26  Me.  464 774 

Town  of  LondondeiTy  v  Chester.  .  2  N.  H.  268 392 

Town  of  Pawlet  v  Clark,  and  others  9  Cranch  (U.  S.)  291 123 

Town  Council,  Cohmibia  v  Duke.  2  Strobh.  L.  (S.  C.)  .530 768 

Tracv  v  Jenks 32  Mass.  465 784 

Travers  v  Abbey 104  Teun.  665 12,  285,  398 

Trinitarian  Congregational  So- 
ciety, Francestown  v  Union 
Congi-egational  Society,  Fran- 
cestown    61  N.  H.  384 453,  637 

Trinity  Ch.  v  HaU,  et  al 22  Conn.  132 572 

Trinity  Methodist  Epis.  Chiu-ch, 

Norwich  v  Harris 73  Conn.  216 129,  339 

True     Reformed    Dutch     Ch.     v 

Iserman 64  N.  J.  L.  506 583,  642 

Trustees  of  M.  E.  Prot.  Church 

V  Adams 4  Ore.  76 16 

Trustees  First  Meth.  Epis.  Church, 

South  V  Atlanta 76  Ga.  181 651.  794 

Trustees  St.  Jacobs  Lutheran 

Church  V  Bly 73  N.  Y.  323 606,  637 

Trustees  of  Christian  Church 

V  Cox 78  111.  App.  219 603 

Trustees  of  Methodist   Epi.s. 

Church  V  Ellis 38  Ind.  3 797 

Trustees  v  Garvey 53  111.  401 733,  734 

Trustees,  East  Norway  Lake  Nor- 
wegian Evang.  Lutheran  Ch.  ct 

others  v  Halvorson 42  Minn.  503 

147, 148,  154,  307,  327.  431,  602,  810 
Trustees  of  Trinity  M.  E.  Church 

V  Harris ' 73  Conn.  216 132, 142,  342 


TABLE  OF  CASES  xlix 

Trustees,  Philadelphia  Baptist  As- 
sociation V  Hart's  Exe 4  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  1 75,  91 

Trustees    of    Auburn    Theological 

Seminary  v  Kellogg 16  N.  Y.  83 876 

Trustees  Phillips  Academy  v  King.  12  Mass.  546 837 

Trustees,    Catholic    Church    Tay- 

lorsville  v  Offutt's  Adm 6  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  535 885 

Trustees  First  Presby.  Cong.  Heb- 
ron V  Quakenbush 10  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  217 447,  465 

Trustees,  Independent  Pres. 
Church  &  Society  of  Buffalo 
Grove  &  Polo  v  Proctor 66  111.  11 290 

Trustees  of  First  Baptist  Church 

m  Syracuse  v  Robinson 21  N.  Y.  234 738 

Trustees  of  the  Organ  Meet.  House 

V  Seaford 1  Dev.  Eq.  (N.  C.)  453 161 

Trustees,  Hanson  Church  v  Stetson  5  Pick.  (Mass.)  506 739 

Trustees,     First    Society    of    the 

Methodist     Episcopal    Church, 

Pultney  v  Stewart 27  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  553 814 

Trustees  of  the  First  Cong.  Ch. 

V  Stewart 43  111.  81 288 

Trustees  v  Sturgeon 9  Pa.  St.  321 399,  490 

Trustees    Associate    Ref.    Ch.    v 

Trustees  Theol.  Seminary 4  N.  J.  Eq.  77 27,  27,  29,  642 

Trustees  South   Bapt.   Church   v 

Yates 1  Hoffman  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  141 809 

Tubbs  V  Lynch 4  Harr.  (Del.)  521 341 

Tucker  v  Mowry 12  Mich.  378 779 

Tucker  v  St.  Clement's  Church. .  .   3  Sandf.  Sup.  Ct.  (N.  Y.)  242,  aff'd. 

8  N.  Y.  558n 468,  563,  828 

Tuckerman  v  Hinkley 9  Allen  (Mass.)  452 754  (2) 

Tuigg  V  Sheehan 101  Pa.  St.  363 399,  659,  681 

Tuigg  V  Treacy 104  Pa.  493 434,  660 

Turner  v  Ogden 1  Cox  Re.  (Eng.)  316 80 

Turpin  v  Bagby 138  Mo.  7 34 

Twenty     Third     St.     Church     v 

Cornell 117  N.  Y.  601 733,  738 

Twin    Valley    Telephone    Co.    v 

Mitchell .  ' 27  Okl.  388 784 

Uhlcr  V  Applegate 26  Pa.  St.  140 757 

Union  Baptist  Society  v  Town  of 

Candia 2  N.  H.  20 468 

Union  Church  v  Sanders 1  Houston  (Del.)  100 311,  397 

United  Presbyterian  Ch.  v  Baird ..   60  la.  237 733 

University  v  Tucker 31  W.  Va.  621 86 

U.  S.  v  BVooks 4  Cranch  C.  C.  (U.  S.)  427 902 

U.  S.  v  {^hurch 8  Utah  310 76,  406,  499 

U.  S.  V  Kennedy 3  Mcl.ean  (U.  S.)  175 903 

U.  S.  V  Lee 4  Cranch  (U.  S.)  446 203 

Updegraph  v  Commonwealth ....    1 1  S.  &  R.  (Pa.)  394 100 

Vail  v  Owen 19  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  22 400 

Van  Buren  v  Reformed  Church  of 

Gansevoort,  N.  Y 62  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  495 422 

Vanderveer  v  McKane 11  N.  Y.  Supp.  808 478 

Van  Deuzen  v  Presby.  Cong 3  Keyes  (\.  Y.)  550 5 


1  tabu:  of  casks 

Van  Horn  v  Talmago 8  N.  J.  Ecj.  108 449 

Viin  I  lout  en  v  First  Rf'f.  Dutch  Ch.  17  N.  J.  Eq.  130 449 

Vunziinl's  Kst:it(> f>  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  625 67,  71 

ViusconccUos,  (>t  al  v  Korraria,  et  al.  27  111.  2.'i7 706 

Venahlo  v  ( 'offtnan 2  W.\'a.  ;J10.  .83,  338,  356,  357,  357,  .541 

Vonablc  v  Khcnczcr  Rapt.  Church.  25  Kan.  177 116,  765 

Vestry  it  Wardens  of  Epis.  (.h.  of 

Christ  Cliurch  Parish  v  Barks- 

dalc 1  Strobhart 's  Eq.  (S.  C.)  199 158 

Vidal  V  Girards  Executors 2  How.  (U.  S.)  127 594 

Vinz  V  Beatty 61  Wis.  645 764 

Vorhees   v   Presbyterian    Chu.    of 

Amsterdam 8  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  135,  17  Barb.  (N. 

V.)  103 4.50 

Waite  V  Merrill,  et  al 4  Me.  90 188,  719 

Wakefield  v  Ross 5  Mason  (U.  8.)  16 901 

Walker,  Re 200  I U.  .566 652 

Walker  v  State 146  S.  W.  862 208 

Walker  v  Wainright 16  Barb.  (X.  Y.)  486 140 

Wall  V  Lee 34  N.  Y.  141 212,  655,  680 

Wallace  v  Hughes 131  Ky.  445 195 

Wallace  v  Snodgrass 34  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  .551 13 

Waller  v  Childs Ambl.  (Eng.)  524 86,  199 

Waller  v  Howell 20  Misc.  Re.  (N.  Y.)  237 1.34,  285 

Wallis  V  State 78  S.  W.  (Texas)  231 76:^ 

Walnut  St.  Pres.  Ch 3  Brewst.  (Pa.)  277 422 

Ward  V  Green 11  Conn.  455 785 

Wardens    of    the    Church    of    St. 

Louis  V  Blanc 8  Rob.  (La.)  51 

126,-5.50,621,661,662,666,688 

Wardens,  Christ  Ch.  v  Pope 8  Gray  (Mass.)  140 

235,  235,  236,  568,  569 
Washburn  v  Parish,  West  Spring- 
field      1  Mass.  32 11 

Washburn  v  Sewall 50  Mass.  280 832 

Watson,  Re 171  X.  Y.  256 349,  616 

Watson  V  Avery 2  Bush.  (Kv.)  332 482,  491,  504 

Watson  V  Garvin 54  Mo.  3.53 153,  486,  502,  514 

W' atson  V  Jones 13  Wall.  679-726  (U.S.) 

136, 199,  509,  513,  516,  618,  633,  638 

Watson  V  State 46  Tex.  Cr.  Re.  138 773 

Watts  V  Van  Ness 1  HiU  (N.  Y.)  76 747 

W'ay  V  Foster 1  Allen  (Mass.)  408 762 

Weaver  v  Devendorf 3  Denio  (X.  Y.)  116 399 

Webster  v  Sughrow 69  X.  H.  380 313,  471 

Wcckerlv  v  Gever 11  S.  &  R.  (Pa.)  35 871 

Wehmer  v  Fokenga 57  Xeb.  510 146,  249,  300,  619 

Weinbrenner  v  Colder 7  Wright  (Pa.)  244 125,  645 

Welch  V  CaldweU 226  Illinois  488 74 

W' eld  V  May 9  Cush.  (Mass.)  181 182 

Wells  V  Commonwealth 107  Va.  834 787 

Went  V  Methodist  Protestant 

Church 80  Hun  (N.  Y.)  266 61 

Went  worth  v  Jefferson 60  N.  H.  158 786 

West   v  First   Presbv.  Ch.  of  St. 

Paul * 41  Minn.  94 494 


TABLE  OF  CASES  li 

West  Koshkonong  Cong,  v  Otteson  80  Wis.  62 322,  611 

West  V  Shuttleworth 2  Myl.  <fe  K.  (Eng.)  684 478 

West  V  State 28  Tenn.  66 201 

We.stminster  Pres.  Ch.  v  J'indley . .  44  Mis.  (N.  Y.)  173 18,  141 

Westminster  Church  v  Presbytery 

of  New  York 211  N.  Y.  214 112,  503 

Weston  V  Hunt 2  Mass.  500 441 

Wheaton  v  Cates 18  N.  Y.  395 537,  819 

Wheelock  v  American  Triu^t   So- 
ciety    109  Mich.  141 834 

Wheelock  v  First  Pres.  Ch 119  Cal.  477 486 

White  and  Martin (Mich.  S  W.  Ill)  Fort.  (Eng.)  375.  .765 

White  V  Attorney  (ien 44  .\m.  Dec.  92 90 

White  V  Miller.  ! 71  N.  Y.  118 724 

Whitecar  v  Michenor 37  N.  J.  Eq.  6 385 

White    Lick    Quart.    Mw^t.,    etc., 

V  White  Lick  Quart.  Meet.,  etc.  89  Ind.  136 114,  139,  257,  260,  326 

White    Plains    Presbyterian    Ch., 

Matter  of ." 112  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  130 794 

Whiteman  v  Lex 17  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  93 70 

Whitmore    v    Fourth    Congrega- 
tional Society 2  Gray  (Mass.)  306 9 

Whitney  v  First  Eccles.  Societv, 

Brooklyn ^  5  Conn.  405 395,  401 

Whitsitt    V    Trustees    Preemption 

Presbyterian  Church 110  111.  125 735,  741,  807 

Wiggin    V    First    Freewill    Baptist 

Church,  LoweU 8  Mete.  (Mass.)  301 315 

Wilke-s-Barre  v  Garabed 11  Pa.  Sup.  Ct.  355 692 

Wilkins     v     Wardens,     etc.     St. 

Mark's  Protestant  Epis.  Ch. .  .  .  52  Ga.  351 644,  846 

Wilkinson  v  Moss 2  Lee  (Eng.)  117 450 

Willard  v  Trustees,    Meth.    Epis. 

Ch.  of  Rockville  Center 66  III.  55 741 

Williams,  Re 57  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  327 240,  432,  869 

Williams  v  Paul 4  M.  &  P.  (Eng.)  532 754 

Williams  v  State 83  Ala.  68 209 

Williams  v  Western  Star  Lodge.  .  .  38  La.  Ann.  620 468 

Williams  v  Williams 8  N.  Y.  525 77 

Wilson  V  Livingston 99  Mich.  594 864 

Wilson  V  Perry 29  W.  Va.  169 504 

Wilson  V  Presbyterian  Ch..  John's 

Island 2  Rich.  Eq.  (S.  C.)  192 

107,  152.492,495,498 

Wilson  V  Tabernacle  Bapt.  Church  28  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  2i5S.  .....  .  .603,  804 

Windham  v  lUmcr 59  So.  (Miss.)  810 32,  132 

Windley  v  McCliney 77  S.  E.  226 33 

Windt  V  German  Ref.  Church ....  4  Sandf.  Ch.  Re.  (N.  Y.)  502.  .59,  62,  65 

Winebrenner  v  Colder 7  Wright  (Pa.)  244 113,  125 

Winnei)esaukee  v  Gordon 67  N.  IL  98 54 

Winslow  V  Cummings 3  Cush.  (Mass.)  358 835 

Woodall  V  State 4  Ga.  App.  783 211 

^\■()()(lw()rth  V  Payne 74  N.  Y.  196 370 

Worrell  v  First  Presby.  Ch 23  N.  J.  Eq.  9().  .316,  484,  495,  500,  643 

Wright  V  Dressel 140  Mass.  147 781 

Wyatt  V  Benson 23  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  327 345,  346 


lii  TABLE  OF  f'ASIOS 

W  yllic  V  Molt 1  HaKK.  Erflos.  (Erin)  19 460 

Vouiig.s  V  HiiiiHom ;il  Harh.  (\.  \ .)  4i) 

ir)2,  388,557,563,  564 

Zimmerman,  Re 22  Misc.  (N.  V.)  411 472 

Zuccaro,  Ex  parte 162  S.  W.  (T(!X.)  844 768 


ACTIONS 

Agent,  when  liable,  1. 

Architect,  for  plans,  2. 

Building  Committee,  2. 

Compromise,  when  effectual,  3. 

Corporation  against  majority  of  members,  4. 

Corporation,  recovering  property,  4. 

Corporation,  against  trustees,  4. 

Damages  against  Railroad  Company  for  disturbing  religious  services,  4. 

Debts,  5. 

Ejectment,  5. 

Elections,  6. 

Forcible  entry  and  detainer,  6. 

Juror,  6. 

Mechanic's  lien,  7. 

Minister's  salary,  8. 

Minister,  statute  of  Umitations,  13. 

Partition,  13. 

Personal  judgment,  when  not  proper,  14. 

Promissory  note,  14. 

Quieting  title,  15. 

Rector,  deposition,  when  no  action  for  damages,  15. 

Reforming  deed,  15. 

Replevin  for  seal,  16. 

Shakers,  16. 

Specific  performance,  16. 

Title,  action  to  compel  conveyance,  16. 

Trespass,  16. 

Trustees,  17. 

Trustees,  de  facto,  18. 

Trustees,  Illinois  rule,  18. 

Trustees,  New  York  rule,  18. 

Trustees,  restraining  unauthorized  acts,  18. 

Trustees,  right  to  sue,  19. 

Trustees'  title  to  office,  20. 

Unincorporated  associations,  20. 

Unincorporated  society,  20. 

Agent,  When  Liable.     A   person  as.snming  to  act  as  the 
agent  of  this  society  (First  Freewill  Society,  Lowell  I,  bor- 

1 


2  Tin;  ('i\  iL  \..\\\  AM)  Tin:  cm  K(  ii 

fowcd  money,  jfiviii^  :i  iioh;  j>ui|K)i-liig  lo  he  llie  iiole  of  llic 
society,  bill  wiiicli  i(  li;i«l  no  powci*  to  exeenti;.  It  was  liel<l 
tiint  the  agont  was  Jinble  foi-  money  had  aud  received.  Jeftn 
V  Vovk,  12  Cnsli.   I  Mass. )    IIM). 

Architect,  for  Plans.  An  action  l)y  an  architect  to  recover 
conipeusation  lor  |»l;ins  |ti"ej)ai('<l  lor  the  erection  of  a  dnirch 
edifice,  witlionl  any  foi-mal  resolution  by  tlie  vesli-y  adopting 
such  plans,  was  sustained  on  the  <;round  that  the  mendjers 
of  the  vestry  had  informally  authorized  the  rector  to  provide 
plans,  aiul  the  architect  had  accordingly  made  an  agreement 
with  him  therefor,  Cann  v  Kector,  Etc.,  Church  of  the 
Holy  Redeemer,  St.  Louis,  121  Mo.  App.  201. 

Building  Committee.  Stantou  v  ranij).  4  Barb.  (  N,  Y. )  274, 
involved  the  validity  of  a  contract  for  the  erection  of  a 
church  edifice  made  by  a  building  committee  of  the  society 
in  the  name  of  the  society  (Presbyterian,  Packetts  Harbor  i. 
It  was  held  that  an  action  could  not  be  maintained  against 
the  members  of  the  committee  personally. 

A  firm  made  a  written  proposition  to  the  building  com- 
mittee of  this  society  (Baptist,  Simmons  Creek),  to  erect  a 
house  of  worship  at  a  price  stated.  The  names  of  the 
building  committee  did  not  appear  in  the  proposition.  The 
proposition  was  accepted  by  two  members  of  the  building 
committee.  The  contractors  proceeded  with  the  work  and 
received  from  the  pastor  money  to  apply  on  the  contract.  It 
was  held  that  the  contract  was  with  the  building  committee 
as  such,  and  not  with  the  members  as  individuals,  and  there- 
fore a  personal  action  could  not  be  sustained  against  the 
members  of  the  building  committee  who  accepted  the  propo- 
sition to  build  the  church.  The  committee  were  the  agents  of 
the  church.    Johnson  v  Welsh,  42  W.  Va.  18. 

An  action  was  brought  against  the  members  of  a  church 
building  committee  as  individuals  to  recover  a  balance  due 
on  a  contract  for  repairs  and  additions  to  the  church  edifice. 
The  contract  was  signed  by  the  committee,  with  the  addition 
of  the  words  "Building  Committee  of  the  M.  E.  Church  at 
Thomaston."     Tt  was  held  that  the  contract  was  peinsonal 


ACTIONS  3 

and  could  be  enforced  against  the  members  of  the  committee. 
Copeland  v  Hewett,  96  Me.  525. 

In  Chambers  v  Calhoun,  18  Pa.  St.  13,  an  action  on  a 
subscription  to  aid  in  the  erection  of  a  church  edifice  was 
sustained.  The  subscriber  was  a  member  of  the  building 
committee  to  whom  the  subscripton  was  made  payable,  and 
the  action  was  brought  by  the  other  members  of  the  com- 
mittee, who  were  held  entitled  to  maintain  the  action,  even 
though  the  church  edifice  had  been  erected,  and  the  com- 
mittee was  out  of  office. 

A  member  of  a  building  committee  who  receives  and  uses 
materials  in  the  erection  of  a  church  building,  will  be  per- 
sonally liable  therefor,  if  he  agreed  to  pay  the  debt  as  one 
of  the  committee,  without  limiting  the  extent  of  his  obliga- 
tion.    Cruse  V  Jones,  3  Lea  (Tenn.)   Gfi. 

In  an  action  against  the  deacons  and  trustees  of  the 
society  (Old  School  Presbyterian  Church)  on  a  contract 
made  by  a  building  committee  for  work  and  labor  in  the 
erection  of  a  church,  it  appeared  that  the  contract  bound  the 
building  committee,  but  that  there  was  no  evidence  that  the 
deacons  and  trustees  had  appointed  the  committee,  or  had 
assumed  an}'  jtersonal  liability  on  the  contract.  It  was  not 
sufficient  to  establish  the  liability  of  the  deacons  and  trustees 
to  show  that  they  were  the  agents  of  the  society.  Devoss 
V  Cray,  22  Ohio  15!). 

A  question  having  arisen  as  to  the  action  of  a  building 
committee,  the  court  held  that  it  was  competent  for  the 
sjrx-iety  by  vote  to  ratify  and  approve  the  action  of  the  com- 
mittee. Norwegian  Evangelical  Lutheran  Bethlehem  Con- 
gregation V  T"'nited  States  Fidelity  and  Cnaran+y  Coiii]»any, 
SI  Minn.  32. 

Compromise,  When  Effectual.  Wlien  a  church  and  society 
are  an  existing  oi-gauized  association,  acting  in  a  collective 
quasi  corporate  cliaracter,  an  agreement  of  compromise  of 
a  suit  by  a  majority  of  the  members  is  binding  upon  the 
minority.  Hoiton  v  Bai)tist  Cliurch  and  Society  of  Chester, 
::4  Vt.  309. 


4  TUV:  ('I\IL   LAW  AM)  Till:  ("IIIIM"!! 

Corporation  Against  Majority  of  Members.  Wliile  it  is  an 
apparent  anomaly  for  a  c'OTi)oralion  in  its  artificial  rapacity 
to  sno  a  majority  of  the  individuals  composing?  it  in  their 
natural  capacity,  it  was  held  in  Maryland  that  Kuch  a  state 
of  things  may  i)roperly  occur  with  regard  to  a  particular 
religious  corporation,  and  perhaps  as  to  many  others,  espe- 
cially where  the  action  was  begun  by  direction  of  a  majority 
of  a  quorum  fixed  by  the  charter,  though  such  majority  was 
not  a  majority  of  all  the  trustees.  For  an  interesting  case 
involving  this  question  see  African  Methodist  Bethel  Church, 
Baltimore  v  Carmack,  2  Md.  Ch.  14.3. 

Corporation,  Recovering  Property.  The  trustees  were  held 
entitled  to  maintain  an  action  to  recover  property,  even  as 
against  a  majority  of  members  of  the  society.  First  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  Attica  v  Filkins,  3  T.  &  C.  (N.  Y.) 
279. 

Corporation,  Against  Trustees.  In  African  Methodist 
Bethel  Church,  Baltimore  v  Carmack,  2  Md.  Ch.  143,  it  was 
held  that  the  trustees  and  not  the  congregation  constituted 
the  corporation ;  also  that  an  action  could  be  maintained 
in  the  name  of  the  church  against  a  majority  of  the  trustees 
in  their  individual  capacity. 

Damages  Against  Railroad  Company  for  Disturbing  Religious 
Services.  In  First  Baptist  Church  in  Schenectady  v  Troy  cS: 
Schenectady  R.  R.  Co.,  5  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  70,  the  church  cor- 
poration was  held  entitled  to  recover  damages  for  the  dis- 
turbance of  its  religious  services  on  the  Sabbath  by  ringing 
of  bells,  blowing  off  steam,  and  other  noises  of  the  railroad. 
The  damages  were  assessed  at  six  cents.  See  First  Baptist 
Church  in  Schenectady  v  The  Utica  &  Schenectady  Railroad 
Company,  6  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  313,  for  a  similar  action  by  the 
same  society  against  another  railroad  company  for  a  sim- 
ilar disturbance  of  divine  worship.  In  the  latter  case  it 
was  held  that  damages  could  not  be  recovered  for  an  alleged 
depreciation  in  the  church  property  for  the  reason  that 
such  damages  were  too  remote ;  and  it  was  also  held  that 
an  individual  member  of  the  congregation  could  not  main- 


ACTIONS  5 

tain  a  private  action  for  damages  lor  disturbing  him  while 
attending  religious  service. 

Debts.  The  property  of  the  society  was  held  liable  lor  the 
payment  of  debts  contracted  b}'  it  in  the  erection  of  build- 
ings or  otherwise,  and  creditors  might  take  proceedings  for 
the  sale  of  the  property,  and  the  application  of  the  proceeds 
for  the  ])aynieut  of  such  debts.  Linn  v  Carson,  32  Graft. 
(Va.)  170. 

In  Beckwith  v  McBride  &  Co.,  70  Ga.  (U2,  it  was  held  that 
a  person  supplying  materials  for  certain  repairs  in  the 
church  edifice  which  had  been  ordered  by  individual  mem- 
bers of  the  vestr}',  could  not  maintain  an  action  against  the 
trustee  of  the  property.  He  was  not  a  party  to  the  contract, 
and  it  was  also  held  that  the  vestry  as  such  was  not  liable 
for  the  reason  that  it  had  not  acted  in  the  matter  as  a  body, 
although  individual  members  had  assumed  to  make  the 
contract. 

Ejectment.  The  society  made  a  contract  of  settlement 
with  a  pastor,  by  which  he  was  to  receive  a  stated  salary 
and  the  use  of  tlie  parsonage.  Tliree  years  later,  on  account 
of  differences  arising  in  the  cliurcli,  the  pastor  and  a  part 
of  the  congregation  withdrew,  and  worshiped  first  in  a  hall 
and  then  in  a  meetinghouse,  becoming  a  flourishing  church 
without  any  connection  with  the  old  society.  The  remaining 
members  employed  a  new  pastor,  and  continued  to  occupy 
the  original  chuirh  i)roperty.  The  old  society  brought  an 
action  of  ejectment  against  the  former  pastor,  to  recover 
})Ossession  of  the  parsonage.  The  court  held  that  the  facts 
did  not  show  conclusiveh'  that  there  had  been  a  secession 
from  the  original  society,  but  that  all  the  facts  should  be 
submitted  to  tlie  jury.  First  Baptist  Cliurch  and  Congrega- 
tion v  Rouse,  21  Conn.  100. 

A  conveyance  to  the  trustees  was  held  to  be  a  conveyance 
to  the  society',  and  suflicient  to  give  the  corporation  the  right 
to  maintain  ejectment.  Van  Deuzen  v  Presby.  Cong.  3 
Keyes  (N.  Y.)  550. 

Trustees  of  an   unincorporated    icligious  society  cannot 


6  'riii;  (IN  iL  LAW   ANh  Tin:  ("iiri:cii 

iiKiiiiliiiii  cjccl  iiicii  I  lo  i-ccuvcr  |t<)ss('ssi()ii  (»!'  cliiircli  projicfly 
coiivcvrtl  ((>  cci'ljiiii  }^i";int<M's  ;is  Inislccs  of  :iii  tiiiiiicoipor- 
;ilc<I  so(i('(.v.     niiiidy  v  liinlsiill.  L'!)  Bnvh.  (X.  V.)  .'51. 

Elections.  In  I't'ople  ex  rcl  I"'l('iiiiii<;- v  II;n-t,  !.'>  N.  V.  Sii|»|». 
JJ03,  36  St.  Rep.  874,  the  coni-1  sustniiicd  ;iti  action  involving' 
the  validity  of  the  elertion  of  chnrcli  wardens  and  veslrv- 
men  of  St.  S<ei)lien's  IM-olestant  I-lpiscoital  Clinrch  of  New 
Yoi-k,  a  pari  of  wlioni  liad  been  ouste<i  from  office,  and  a 
si»ecial  idection  was  ordered  to  fill  tlie  va<anci<'s  caused  by 
such  ouster,  and  a  referee  was  appointed  to  snj»ervise  such 
election. 

Forcible  Entry  and  Detainer.  On  a  division  in  the  clinrch 
i-esnlliiij;  in  the  withdrawal  of  a  i)ortion  of  the  members 
and  the  pastor,  a  majority  placed  the  building  in  charge  of 
tlie  jH'titioner,  wlio  i)nt  new  locks  on  the  doors  and  retained 
the  keys.  On  the  following  Sunday  a  large  party  of  the 
dissentient  members  removed  the  locks  and  maintained 
devotional  exercises.  Tlie  petitioner  brought  an  action  for 
forcible  entry  and  detainer.  It  was  held  under  the  New 
York  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  that  he  was  the  agent  of  the 
majority  who  were  entitled  to  the  possession  of  the  church, 
and  could  maintain  the  action.  Central  Park  Baptist 
Church  V  Patterson,  9  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  452. 

Trustees  of  the  society  sought  to  maintain  a  proceeding 
for  forcible  entry  and  detainer  in  their  individual  names, 
but  it  was  held  that  the  title  of  the  real  property  being  in 
the  cor])oration,  the  proceeding  must  be  in  its  name  and 
not  in  the  name  of  the  trustees.  People  ex  rel  Fulton  v 
Fulton,  UN.  Y.  94. 

IVojde  V  IJunkle,  9  John.  (N.  Y'.)  147,  sustained  the  right 
of  the  trustees  to  nuiiutain  a  proceeding  for  forcible  entry 
and  detainer  against  a  minister  and  several  members  of  the 
church  who  had  broken  open  the  building  for  the  purpose  of 
holding  religions  services  therein 

Juror.  A  member  of  the  Lutheran  Chur(  h  was  held  not 
discpialitied  as  a  juror  in  an  action  in  which  another  Lu- 
theran church  was  a  jiarty.    Barton  v  Erickson,  14  Neb.  104. 


ACTIONS  7 

Mechanic's  Lien.  Property  was  convoyed  under  special 
trust  that  it  should  be  always  secure  to  the  Eastern  Meth- 
odist Society  in  Lynn,  "and  such  ministers  ol"  the  Methodist 
Kj)iscopal  Church  as  inay  from  time  to  time  be  stationed 
among  tliem  to  preach  and  expound  the  word  of  Cod,  to 
administer  tlie  or<linances  and  disci])liiie  of  the  clinrch,  and 
to  hold  their  private  relij;ions  nieetiii«;s  nniiioU'sled  accord- 
ing to  the  rnk^s  and  regulations  wliidi  are  or  may  hereafter 
be  adopted  by  the  Ceneral  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
coi)a]  Clinrch  in  the  Cnited  States  of  America."  The  orig- 
inal trustees  were  held  to  be  the  legal  owners  of  the  estate, 
holding  it  for  the  church.  All  improvements  on  the  property 
attached  to  the  freehold,  and  became  the  property  of  the 
original  surviving  trustee.  The  clnirch  edifice  having  been 
destroyed  by  fire  was  rebuilt.  A  mechanic's  lien  was  tiled 
against  the  property  nuiking  the  church  society  the  respond- 
ent, but  without  joining  the  original  surviving  trustee.  The 
proceedings  were  deemed  defective,  and  the  lien  could  not 
be  enforced.  I'eabody  v  Eastern  Methodist  Society,  Lynn, 
5  Allen  (Mass.)  540. 

Land  was  conveyed  to  trustees  of  a  religious  society  on 
condition  that  said  lot  was  never  to  be  sold  or  to  be  used  in 
any  other  way  only  for  the  use  of  a  church.  Trustees  erected 
a  building  on  the  property'  w'hich  was  used  as  a  school  and 
aLso  as  a  house  of  worship.  A  mechanic's  lien  was  filed  on 
the  property,  and  proceedings  w^ere  instituted  for  the  fore- 
closure of  the  lien  and  the  sale  of  the  i)roi)erty.  Judgment 
was  obtained,  and  the  i)roperty  sold  by  the  sheritl'  to  the 
judgment  creditor.  The  grantor  in  the  deed  brought  an 
action  to  set  aside  the  sale  on  the  mechanic's  lien  on  the 
ground  that  such  a  lien  could  not  be  obtained  on  property 
held  in  perpetuity  for  the  purpose  indicated  in  the  deed,  and 
that  the  action  of  the  church  trustees  in  permitting  such  lien 
and  sale  of  the  ])roperty  was  a  violation  of  tiie  trust,  and 
that  the  purchaser  obtained  no  title  as  again.st  the  original 
grantor.  It  was  held  that  the  sah'  of  the  ])roi>erty  under 
a  mechanic's  lien  uecessarilv  dclcalcd  the  object  of  the  char- 


s  'riii;  (IN  iL  LAW  A.\h  'iiii;  (iii  itm 

ilv.  ;iii(I  tli;il  llic  Inislccs  i-cccix  iii^  tlic  deed  IkhI  no  power  to 
(•rente  any  iiKMinihrjuice  which  wouhl  liavo  thiw  etfcft.  They 
couM  neither  jilienato  ilu*  i)i*()p(;rty  voluntarily,  nor  subject 
it;  to  a  lien  which  niiyht  ripen  into  a  judgment  and  sale,  but 
they  were  rotjuired  to  hold  the  jjroperty  for  the  perpetual 
purpose  of  the  trust.    Grissom  v  Hill,  17  Ark.  483. 

In  this  case  the  rule  was  laid  down  that  in  Arkansas  a 
church  building  was  not  subject  to  a  mechanic's  lien. 
ICureka  Stone  Company  v  First  Christian  Church,  8fi  Ark, 
212. 

In  an  action  to  foreclose  a  mechanic's  lien  for  labor  and 
materials  furnished  in  making  rej)airs  to  a  church  edifice, 
it  aj)peared  that  the  congregation  apjiointed  a  building  com- 
mittee to  take  charge  of  the  improvements.  This  committee 
contracted  with  the  plaintiff.  The  work  was  performed  and 
materials  furnished,  and  a  mechanic's  lien  was  filed  in  the 
proper  office.  The  trustees  defended  on  the  ground  that 
neither  the  congregation  nor  the  trustees  should  be  liable 
for  the  indebtedness  created  b}'  the  improvements,  which 
were  to  be  paid  for  by  voluntary  contributions.  It  was  hehl 
that  the  contractor  was  entitled  to  enforce  his  lien.  Gorte- 
miller  v  Rosengarn,  103  Ind.  414. 

In  an  action  to  foreclose  a  mechanic's  lien  on  the  church 
edifice  owned  by  an  unincorporated  society,  it  was  held  that 
the  action  could  not  be  maintained  against  an  unincorpor- 
ated society,  but  that  the  members  of  the  church,  as  joint 
promissors  or  partners,  were  liable  for  the  debt.  Thurmond 
V  Cedar  Sjiring  Baptist  Church,  110  Ga.  810. 

A  church  edifice  was  held  to  be  a  building  within  the 
mechanic's  lien  law,  and  therefore  subject  to  be  sold  in  pro- 
ceedings for  foreclosure  of  such  a  lien.  Harrlsburg  Lumber 
Company  v  Washburn,  29  Ore.  150. 

In  Beam  v  First  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  3  Pa.  L.  J. 
Rep.  343,  it  was  held  that  a  mechanic's  lien  on  a  church 
edifice  could  not  be  enforced  against  an  adjoining  grave- 
yard used  by  the  society. 

Minister's  Salary.     A  minister  brought  an  action  against 


ACTIONS  « 

the  sot'iely  for  an  alleg^ed  balance  of  a  year's  salary.  The 
salary  was  fixed  in  connection  with  his  settlenient  as  pastor. 
The  pastoral  relation  had  at  least  in  form  been  dissolved 
by  the  action  of  the  association,  but  the  severance  was  on 
the  ex  parte  application  of  the  local  church  without  the 
minister's  consent.  Whether  such  a  dissolution  of  the  pas- 
toral relation  was  regular  under  the  law  of  the  church  was 
held  to  be  a  proper  question  for  the  jury.  Gibbs  v  Gilead 
Ecclesiastical  Society,  38  Conn.  153. 

In  an  action  by  a  minister  for  his  salary  after  he  had  l)eeu 
dismissed,  it  was  held  that  the  parish  could  not  give  evidence 
of  previous  immorality  on  his  part  not  stated  in  the  vote  of 
dismissal.  Whitmore  v  Fourth  Congregational  Society,  2 
Gray  (Mass.)  306. 

The  elders  and  deacons  called  a  minister  as  pastor  of  the 
church.  The  call  was  not  accepted,  but  the  minister  occu- 
I)ied  the  pulpit  and  performed  service  as  pastor  for  one  year. 
In  an  action  against  the  elders  and  deacons  for  his  salary, 
it  was  held  that  not  having  accepted  the  call,  he  was  not  the 
regular  pastor,  and  was  therefore  not  entitled  to  the  emolu- 
ments of  the  office,  and  the  elders  and  deacons  were  not 
liable.    Neill  v  Spencer,  5  111.  Ai)p.  4()1. 

The  pastor  was  emi)loyed  by  tlie  congregation  in  Decem- 
ber, ISSG,  and  entered  on  his  duties  in  January,  1887,  an<l 
continued  to  serve  tlie  chui-ih  until  October  1."),  1889,  wiien 
the  congregation  voted  that  his  relation  to  the  chnrcli  sliould 
be  terminated.  The  doors  of  the  church  were  locked  against 
him,  and  jtayment  of  his  salary  was  refuse<l.  An  action 
was  br(night  to  recover  salary  claimed  to  be  due  for  a  ])art 
of  the  year,  the  pastor  alleging  that  his  employment  was 
for  life,  and  not  for  any  definite  time.  Tender  the  law  of  the 
church  the  pastor  must  have  been  a  member  (»f  the  recognized 
Evangelical  Lntheian  Synod  in  the  United  States.  The 
])astor  claimed  that  iiis  discharge  was  illegal.  Tlu^  defend- 
ants asserted  that  the  pastor  was  not  (lualilied,  for  the 
reason  that  he  was  not  a  niend»cr  of  a  recogiii/.ed  Evangel- 
ical Luthei-an   Svnod  of  the  couulrv,  and   th:it   his  continu- 


10         Tur:  ('i\  II.  LA\\'  AM)  'iiii;  cm  kcii 

nncc  ;is  pMstor  w;is  in  vioialioii  ol'  the  law  ol"  tin;  cIiuitIi. 
Ik'  liad  a  jn-ovisory  relation  to  the  synod  a((|uiie<l  in  1SS(), 
but  in  ISSl)  his  relations  to  the  syno«l  were  terniinale*!.  His 
application  for  membership  was  reje(te<l.  He  thereujion 
ceased  to  be  a  mendier  of  the  sj'nod,  and  at  the  same  time 
ceased  to  have  the  needed  qualifications  to  entitle  him  to 
api)ointment  as  i)astor.  Tlie  i>astor  was  not  entitled  to 
recover  the  salary  claimed,    llelbij^  v  Kosenberg,  SO  la.  159. 

A  person  employed  as  pastor  was  to  receive  a  stated  salary 
and  the  use  of  the  parsonage.  The  ]>astor  agreed  to  perform 
the  service  for  such  amount  as  could  be  raised  by  subscrip- 
tions, which  were  to  be  collected  by  the  society,  an<l  he  per- 
formed the  service  for  six  years.  He  then  brought  an  action 
to  recover  the  balance  due.  It  was  held  that  the  society 
was  bound  to  use  due  diligence  in  collecting  the  subscrip- 
tions, and  that  the  pastor  was  entitled  to  recover  the  balance 
due,  after  deducting  all  amounts  received  by  him.  Myers 
v  Baptist  Society  of  Jamaica,  38  Vt.  614. 

In  Landers  v  Frank  Street  Church,  Rochester.  !)7  X.  Y. 
119,  also  114  N.  Y.  620,  it  was  held  that  the  minister  could 
not  maintain  an  action  against  the  society  for  a  deticiency 
in  his  salary,  it  appearing  that  by  the  rules  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  the  minister's  salary  is  fixed  by  the  Quar- 
terly Conference,  and  that  no  contract  relation  exists  be- 
tween the  minister  and  the  corporation  as  to  his  salary,  See 
also  Baldwin  v  P"'irst  M.  E.  Church,  79  Wash.  578. 

The  constitution  of  Massachusetts  has  not  authorized  any 
teacher  to  recover  by  action  at  law  any  money  assessed  i)ur- 
suant  to  the  third  article  of  the  Declaration  of  Hights  but 
a  public  Protestant  teacher  of  some  legally  incorporated 
society.  Therefore,  a  pnblic  teacher  chosen  by  a  voluntary 
association  of  Universalists  was  held  not  to  be  within  the 
purview  of  this  constitutional  provision.  Barnes  v  First 
Parish,  Falmouth,  6  Mass.  401. 

The  pastor  brought  an  action  against  the  trustees  of  the 
society  to  recover  his  salary  for  four  years.  It  was  held  that 
he  was  entitled  to  recover  and  that  he  was  not  prevented  by 


ACTIONS  11 

the  provision  iu  the  Methodist  Discipline  providing  that 
effective  men  who  have  not  been  able  to  obtain  their  allow- 
ance from  the  ])eople  among  whom  tliey  liave  labored  nmy 
present  a  claim  to  the  Conference  to  be  paid  out  of  the  money 
at  the  disposal  of  the  Conference,  and  such  claims  may  be 
paid,  or  any  i)art  thereof,  as  tlie  Conference  may  determine. 
In  no  case,  however,  shall  the  church  or  Conference  be  holden 
accountable  for  any  deficiency,  as  in  case  of  debt.  The  court 
said  the  etfect  of  the  provision  in  the  Discipline  was  to 
permit  a  minister  to  present  a  claim  for  deficiency  to  the 
Conference,  and  to  receive  it  as  a  favor,  but  not  as  a  right. 
Sudi  a  deficiency  did  not  constitute  a  debt  against  the 
church  at  large,  but  it  might  be  used  as  the  basis  of  an 
action  against  the  local  society. 

The  minister  who  bronglit  this  action  was  also  a  mechanic, 
and  the  court  held  that  he  was  entitled  to  enforce  a  lien 
against  the  church  for  services  in  that  capacity.  Jones  v 
Trustees  of  Mt.  Zi(m  Cliurch,  IW  La.  Ann.  711. 

Even  if,  as  in  some  churches  (in  this  case  the  Evangelical 
Association),  no  contract  was  made  for  the  payment  of  the 
l)astor's  salary,  but  he  is  de])endent  on  voluntary  contribu- 
tions for  his  compensation,  this  right  to  compensation  is  a 
I)ropert3'  right  in  the  office  of  pastor  which  a  court  of  equity 
will  recognize  and  protect.  Schwciker  v  Husser,  140  111. 
399. 

A  public  teacher  of  religion  not  oi-daiiied  ovci-  a  ])articular 
parish  or  jdace,  but  only  indefinitely  over  a  lai-ge  district  of 
country,  including,  or  which  may  include,  a  nundter  of  par- 
ishes or  places,  cannot  maintain  an  action  to  recover  moneys 
assessed  for  the  su])port  of  ])ublic  worshii).  Washburn  v 
Parish,  West  Springfield,  1  Mass.  32. 

Where  money  for  the  minister's  salary  had  been  raised  by 
subsci-ijjtious,  and  was  availal>le  for  that  pui-pose,  llie  cliurrii 
was  held  liable,  although  the  call  and  Ilic  agreement  Tor 
the  pastor's  service  did  not  conCoi m  lo  llic  provisions  <»r  llic 
statute.  Pendleton  v  \\'nt('i-loo  \\.i\  • .  Cli.  I!)  Ilnii.  (N.  V.) 
590. 


12  TIIK  ('l\'II>   l-AW    AM>  THi;  CIIIKCH 

WluMl  :i  l(»\\ii  li;is  sclllrd  ;i  iiiiiiislcr  ;iii  ;nlioii  will  lie  lor 
liis  sahirv  ;ijj;;iiiisl  llic  town,  iiolwilliHtJindiiij;  there  in;iy  Ik; 
scvenil  uiiiiicoi-poriilcd  rclij^ions  societies  or  associations 
witliin  the  town,  the  nieinbeis  of  which  may  l)e  exempted  by 
law  from  contributing  to  the  support  ol"  such  minister. 
Cochran  v  Camden,  15  Mass.  2Wl 

The  pastor  has  no  ]»roperty  rij^hl  in  his  sahiiy  as  against 
the  church.  That  is  a  matter  of  voluntary  contribution  by 
the  membershii),  except  so  far  as  individuals  may  bind  them- 
selves therefor.  Tlie  pastor  is  not  an  emj)loyee  of  the 
church.  Pecuniary  considerations  are  not  controlling  in 
such  relations.    Travers  v  Abbey,  104  Tenn.  GG5. 

The  society,  by  ex  parte  proceedings,  dissolved  its  relations 
with  the  pastor  aud  prevented  him  from  occupying  the  meet- 
ing house  and  pulpit.  Nevertheless,  he  preached  at  private 
houses  to  such  as  chose  to  hear  him.  In  an  action  by  the 
pastor  for  his  salary  it  was  held  that  his  dismission  by  an 
ex  j)arte  council  was  invalid,  and  that  he  was  entitled  to 
recover  his  salary.  Thompson  v  Cath.  Con.  Soc.  5  Pick. 
(Mass.)  469. 

The  parish  and  the  minister  made  an  agreement  by  which 
the  salary  was  to  be  regulated  according  to  the  price  of  the 
necessaries  of  life,  increasing  the  salary  if  the  prices  rose, 
and  diminishing  it  if  the  prices  were  reduced.  The  salary 
was  to  be  fixed  by  the  parish  committee.  This  committee 
having  determined  the  salary,  it  was  held  that  such  deter- 
mination was  conclusive,  and  the  minister  could  not,  in  an 
action  to  recover  additional  salary,  show  that  the  committee' 
had  been  mistaken  in  estimating  the  prices  of  necessaries. 
The  committee  having  acted  fairly  and  honestly,  its  deter- 
mination was  conclusive.    Burr  v  Sandwich,  9  Mass.  277. 

In  Reformed  Dutch  Church  of  Albany  v  Bradford,  S 
Cowan  (N.  Y.)  457,  it  was  held  t^^r.t  the  minister  was  not 
entitled  to  his  salary  for  the  during  which  he  was 

under   suspension    for   miscondut.    as   determined   by    the 
church  judicatories. 

The  i^resbytery  having  jurisdiction  of  this  church  dis- 


ACTIONS  18 

solved  the  ijastui-al  relaliuii  belweeu  llie  minister  and  the 
cougregatiou,  but  without  any  action  on  the  part  of  the 
congregation.  It  was  liehl  that  the  etlect  of  (lie  dissolution 
was  to  suspend  the  right  of  the  minister  to  render  pastoral 
services,  and  the  liability  of  the  congregation  to  the  min- 
ister for  compensation  pending  a  final  <letermination  of  the 
question  as  to  the  regnlai-i(y  of  Ihe  action  of  the  presbytery. 
In  such  a  case  the  fact  tliat  the  action  of  the  presbytery  was 
thereafter  decreed  to  be  illegal  docs  not  aft'ect  the  status 
of  the  parties  during  the  period  of  litigation,  and  if  the  min- 
ister seeks  and  secures  other  employment  during  such 
period,  and  never  offers  to  resume  the  pastoral  relation,  he 
cannot  maintain  an  action  against  the  congregation  for  his 
salary  during  the  period  from  the  dissolutiou  of  the  pastoral 
relation  to  the  date  of  the  decree  declaring  such  dissolution 
invalid.    Wallace  v  Snodgrass,  'M  l*a.  Super.  Ct.  551. 

The  I'resbytery  of  Oklahoma  appointed  the  minister  or 
stated  su])i)ly,  and  he  was  accei)ted  by  the  church.  It  was 
held  that  in  the  absence  of  any  legal  contract  the  church 
became  obligated  to  pay  him  a  fair  and  just  com])ensation 
lor  his  services.  If  it  could  ol)tain  aid  from  the  Home 
.Mission  Board,  this  was  its  right,  and  after  applying  the 
amount  i»aid  by  such  board,  if  there  was  still  a  balance 
due  to  make  a  fair  and  just  c()mi)ensation,  it  was  bound 
and  obligated  to  pay  such  balance.  In  this  case  it  was  held 
that  there  was  no  ex])ress  contract  between  the  nunister  and 
the  local  society.  Myeis  v  First  Presbyterian  Church,  Perry, 
1 1  Okla.  544. 

In  Kilfe  v  Proctor,  !)!>  Mo.  Ai»p.  (UH,  it  was  held  that  the 
nuMubers  of  the  local  society  were  not  individually  liable  for 
the  i)astor's  salary. 

Minister,  Statute  of  Limitations.  The  six-year  statute  of 
limitations  ajqilies  to  an  account  of  a  minister  for  services 
IK'i-formed  for  a  church.  Cray  v  (Jood,  44  Ind.  A()i>.  C.  Ilej). 
4T(;. 

Partition.  In  Leblanc  v  Lemaire,  105  La.  5:>!),  it  was  held 
that   a   niinoritv  of  the  members  of  the  society  could   not 


U  Til  10  (M\'ll.   LAW    A\l>  Tin:  (III   IK  11 

iii;iiiil:iiii  ;iii  ndioii  I'oi'  tli<'  pii  rt  i  I  ion  of  the  <  liiii'cji  prDpcct  y, 
consist  iiiju,'  of  ;i  imrial  <ii-onn<l  ;in(l  :i  clinrcli  site  wiili  hiiiiii- 
inj;s  jlicrcon.  While  tlu*y  n'iiy  li;iv(^  (•<M't;iin  |»rop('rly  rights 
ill  the  cliurch  holdings,  they  are  not  considcrefl  such  ones 
in  indivision  iis  give  them  a  stainlinjf  in  conit  to  procure 
against  the  will  of  the  nuijority  a  jtartilion  of  that  wliich, 
by  coninioii  uiKlerstaiuling,  is  inlendcd  to  i-eiiiain  intact  for 
the  purpose  of  religious  w'orslii]>. 

Personal  Judgment,  When  Not  Proper.  An  action  w;is  coni- 
nienced  by  a  iiieiiibei'  of  the  society,  which  was  not  iiu'orpor- 
ated,  against  his  associates  to  recover  a  personal  judgment. 
It  was  held  that  he  could  not  recover,  and  that  his  only 
remedy  was  in  equity"  against  the  church  property.  German 
Eoman  Catholic  Church  v  Kaus,  C>  Ohio.  Dec.  1028. 

Promissory  Note.  An  action  was  brought  against  several 
persons  to  recover  the  amount  of  a  promissory  note  given 
by  the  pastor  for  money  borrowed,  to  be  used  in  the  erection 
of  a  church  editice.  The  defendants  were  called  a  building 
committee,  but  they  were  not  parties  to  the  note.  The  com- 
mittee did  not  handle  any  funds,  and  their  only  authority 
was  advisory.  The  pastor  had  charge  of  the  building  of  the 
church,  raised  the  money,  and  supervised  the  erection  of  the 
building.  It  was  held  that  there  was  no  evidence  of  liability 
on  the  part  of  the  so-called  building  committee,  and  the 
plaintiff  was  not  entitled  to  recover  against  them  on  the 
note.    Freeport  Bank  v  Egan,  UG  Pa.  lOG. 

In  Brockway  v  Allen,  17  Wend.  (N.  Y. )  40,  the  court  sus- 
tained the  validity  ot  a  jiromissory  note  given  by  tnistees 
of  the  society  for  a  preexisting  debt  for  materials  furnished. 
They  acted  as  the  agents  of  the  corporation. 

A  promissory  note  was  given  for  material  and  labor  fur- 
nished in  the  erection  of  a  church.  The  note  was  signed  by 
the  senior  warden  and  by  the  junior  warden.  In  an  action 
against  the  church  it  was  held  that  the  note  had  been  ratified 
by  the  vestry,  and  that  the  church  was  therefore  liable 
thereon.  Donnelly  v  St.  John's  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  LM;  La.  Ann.  7;i^. 


ACTIONS  15 

In  Cattron  v  First  Universalist  Society,  Maiuliestoi-,  40 
Iowa  10(5,  it  Avas  hold  that  an  action  conhl  not  be  maintained 
on  a  promissory  note  given  by  the  president  and  secretary 
of  the  board  of  trnstees  without  any  authority  from  the 
l)oa]'(l. 

Quieting  Title.  It  was  held  that  the  corpoi*atiou  was  at 
least  a  de  facto  corpoi'ation  and  that  its  trustees  could 
maintain  an  action  involving  the  property  interests,  until 
their  ]>owers  were  questioned  in  an  action  by  the  attorney 
general.  Tht^refore  the  society  a>  as  held  entitled  to  main- 
tain an  action  to  quiet  title  and  protect  the  property.  First 
Baptist  Church  of  San  Jose  v  Branhan,  90  Cal.  22. 

The  society,  acting  on  permission  granted  by  school 
trustees,  erected  a  house  of  worshij*  and  established  a  cem- 
etery on  school  lands,  but  encroached  on  other  lands  which 
had  been  included  in  the  school  lot  by  mistake,  and  which 
had  subsequenth'  been  conveye<l  to  a  thir<l  pei'son  by  the 
original  grantor.  In  an  action  by  tlie  church  to  (piiet  the 
title,  it  was  hehl  that  the  society  could  not  hold  the  lands 
by  adverse  possession,  ]>artly  because  suiUcient  time  had  not 
elapsed  since  the  original  occupancy  and  partly  because  the 
occupancy  was  liy  mistake.  Such  an  occui)ancy  could  not 
rii)en  into  a<lvei'se  ]»oss('ssion.     Davis  v  Owen,  107  \'a.  2S:;. 

Rector,  Deposition,  When  No  Action  for  Damages.  The 
society  having  become  reduced  in  numbers,  a  minister  was 
sent  to  it  as  a  missionary.  Alter  about  a  year's  service  he 
resigned  this  ]»()sition  and  was  elcctcfl  rector  by  the  vestry. 
The  rector  was  charged  bel'oi-e  a  church  tribunal  an<l  con- 
victed of  conduct  unbecoming  a  chMgyman,  and  was 
degraded  ami  debarred  from  tlie  ministi-y  and  the  l)isli(»p 
imposed  sentence  accordingly.  '^Phe  rector  brought  an  action 
against  a  mend)er  of  his  congregation  and  the  bishop  for 
danuiges.  At  the  trial  it  was  held  that  there  was  no  evidence 
to  sustain  the  rector's  claim  that  the  defendants  liad  con- 
spii-ed  to  injnre  his  character  as  a  Christian  minister. 
Irvine  v  Elliott,  20(;  Pa.  St.  ir>2. 

Reforming  Deed.     The  ]in»]»i-i('tor  of  laml  set   it  apart  for 


K;  Tin:  (M\  IL   LAW  AM)  Till;  (III  KCH 

llie  use  and  hciiclit.  ol'  (lie  JMctliodisl  J'rcdcslaiit  (Jliurcli  of 
the  town  of  Jeirerson  as  a  site  for  tlio  erection  of  a  houKc  of 
public  worship,  inleudiiifij  to  «;iv(*  the  same  to  the  cliui-cli 
for  that  i)uri>osc,  and  accord  in  jjly  executed  a  deed  to  a  thinl 
person,  who  suhseipicntly  conveyed  the  title  to  the  society. 
A  house  of  worsliij)  was  erected  on  tlie  land.  Tlie  transfer 
was  valid,  but  the  title  was  defective  by  reason  of  a  mistake; 
in  the  description.  It  was  held  that  the  society  could  main- 
tain an  action  to  reform  the  deed,  and  correct  the  dee<l,  and 
correct  the  mistake.  Trustees  of  Methodist  Ejtiscopal  I'ro- 
testant  Church  v  Adams,  4  Ore.  70. 

Replevin  for  Seal.  The  rector,  church  wardens,  etc.,  of 
au  iucorjiorated  church  cannot  nuiintain  replevin  for  the 
corporate  seal  against  the  treasurer  of  the  church,  where  a 
rule  of  the  church  declares  that  the  treasurer  shall  safely 
keep  the  corporation  seal.  Rector,  etc.,  v  Blackhurst,  11 
N.  Y.  Supp.  (;()9. 

Shakers.  An  action  may  be  maintained  by  <leacons  of  a 
Shaker  Society  for  trespass  on  property.  Anderson  v  Brock, 
;{  Me.  243. 

Specific  Performance.  The  court  decreed  the  specific  per- 
formance of  a  contract  for  the  sale  of  the  church  property, 
which  contract  had  been  submitted  to  the  supreme  court 
and  approved,  with  an  order  authorizing  the  sale  and  direct- 
ing the  disposition  of  the  proceeds  by  the  corporation. 
Bowen  v  Irish  I*resbyterian  Congregation,  Xew  York,  G 
Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  245. 

Title,  Action  To  Compel  Conveyance.  A  subscriber  to  a  fund 
for  the  erection  of  a  church  edifice  donated  two  lots  in  pay- 
ment of  his  subscription,  and  the  society  erected  its  meeting 
house  on  the  land.  No  deed  was  made,  but  the  society  can- 
celed the  subscription,  and  the  subscriber  indicated  the  dona- 
tion on  the  map  of  a  tract  including  these  lots  and  others. 
The  society  was  held  entitled  to  maintain  action  to  compel 
the  conveyance  of  the  land.    Enos  v  Chestnut,  88  111.  500. 

Trespass.  Trustees  de  facto  may  maintain  an  action  for 
trespass  on  i)r()i)erty.    Green  v  Cady.  !»  Wend.  (  N.  Y.  I  414. 


ACTIONS  17 

After  thirty  years  ol'  uiiiuterrui)ted  possession  ol'  property 
(Cherokee  Chapel,  Fort  Smith,  Ark.)  the  society  was  pre- 
sumed to  have  obtained  the  title  thereto.  It  was  further 
held  that  the  trustees  mij^ht  brinj;  an  action  for  tres- 
pass on  the  pro])erty,  for  di*ij>ing  and  removing  coal  there- 
from. Penny  v  Central  Coal  and  Coke  Comi)any,  lr',8 
Fed.  769. 

Where  the  fee  of  the  clnii-cli  projx'ity  is  in  one  society, 
but  anotlier  society  has  a  right  to  use  the  same  for  religions 
pnri)Oses,  the  second  society  cannot  maintain  an  action  of 
trespass;  such  a  riglit  of  action  is  ])Ossessed  only  by  the 
owner  of  the  fee,  or  by  some  person  or  society  entitled  to  the 
exclusive  possession.  Religious  Congregational  Society, 
Bakersfield  v  Baker,  15  Yi.  1  U). 

A  minister  of  a  parish,  who,  by  virtue  of  his  settlement, 
had  a  freehold  estate  in  a  ministerial  land,  was  entitled  (o 
maintain  an  action  of  tresi)ass  thereon.  The  action  was 
j)ersonal  and,  therefore,  did  not  abate  by  a  dissolution  of  the 
parochial  relation.     Cargill  v  Scwall,  1!>  ]\[e.  2SS. 

Trustees.  Vcrsons  who  rurnishcd  pews  ;mi<1  other  rnrnitnre 
for  the  church  brought  an  action  against  the  trustees  and 
recovered  judgment  foi-  the  amount  of  the  debt.  This  did 
not  create  a  lien  on  tiic  i)i*o]K'rty,  but  was  a  claim  against 
the  trustees,  and  was  vali<l  as  to  them.  The  trustees  merely 
hold  the  legal  title  to  the  real  estate  conveyed,  devised,  or 
dedicated  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  religious  congrega- 
tion, at  whose  instance  they  have  been  ai»pointe<l,  and  they 
have  no  i)()wer  of  their  own  volition,  ami  in  their  capacity 
as  trustees,  either  to  alien  or  encumber  such  real  estate. 
Globe  Furniture  Company  v  Trustees,  Jerusalem  Bajttist 
Cliurch,  10;{  Va.  ry^yU. 

A  building  contract  was  signed  by  the  jtresidenl  of  the 
society,  which  was  not  incorporate<l.  It  was  held  that  llie 
society  was  not  a  necessary  or  ])roi)er  party  in  an  action 
against  the  trustees  on  the  contract.  Such  a  contract,  e.\e- 
cuted  by  the  authority  of  the  trustees,  will  be  treated  as 
their  contract  ami   mav  be  enforcc'd    in   an   action    .igainst 


Is  Till-:  CI  NIL   LAW   AM»  '11 1 1!  r|H   K'(|| 

llu'iii.  Lmisloid  ^;  Williiow  < 'uiiip;iiiy  \  W'icii.  <;|  W .  \";i. 
458. 

If  the  Icnijioriilil  ics  jii'c  iiiiiiiiij;('(l  l»y  Inistccs  chMlcd  uiMl«*r 
tlu*  statute,  tlic  niliii<i;  elders  and  ineiidM-rs  of  the  session 
have  no  staiidiiij;  to  maintain  an  a«i  ion  in  tlieii-  own  name  or 
the  name  of  the  coriioralion  aj^ainst  li-nstees  allej^ecl  to  have 
been  suspended  by  the  session  as  (•ommunicants,  and  tliere- 
fore  not  ('iilille(l  lo  ;irt  as  trustees.  Westminster  Pres. 
(Miuirh  V  Findley,  44  Misc.  (N.  V.)   17:!. 

Several  mend)ers  of  the  societj'  bi-oujj^ht  an  action  a<;ainst 
other  nienibers  described  as  trustees  for  an  ac<-ountinji  of 
certain  funds  belon<;in;^  to  the  society,  and  for  an  injunction 
restraining-  the  trustees  from  continuinji;  the  use  of  instru- 
mental music  (an  organ),  which  was  alleged  to  have  been 
introduced  by  them  contrary  to  the  custom  of  the  church. 
It  was  held  that  the  plaintitfs  had  uo  standing  to  nmintain 
an  action  and  that  the  action  was  not  properly  brought 
against  the  defendants  describing  them  as  trustees  but  that 
the  action  should  have  been  brought  against  the  corporation. 
Tartar  v  Gibbs,  24  Md.  323. 

Trustees,  De  Facto.  The  trustees  of  a  religious  corporation 
and  officers  appointed  by  them  whose  elections  and  appoint- 
ments were  in  conformity  with  the  formalities  prescribe<l 
by  the  statute,  and  who  have  in  fact  acted  and  are  acting 
as  such,  are  at  least  officers  de  facto,  upon  whom  alone  a 
valid  service  of  process  can  be  made.  Berrian  v  Methodist 
Society,  New  York,  4  Abb.  Pr.  ( N.  Y.)  424. 

Trustees,  Illinois  Rule.  In  Illinois  actions  by  or  against 
religious  societies  must  be  in  the  name  of  the  trustees 
instead  of  the  society  as  such.  Ada  St.  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  V  Gavusey,  (it;  111.  132. 

Trustees,  New  York  Rule.  Trustees  of  religious  societies 
cannot  sue  as  such  excei)t  by  tlieir  corporate  name  or  title. 
Bundy  v  Birdsall,  20  Barb.  ( N.  Y.»  31. 

Trustees,  Restraining  Unauthorized  Acts.  This  society  was 
incorporated  in  17S8  by  special  act.  The  charter  was 
amended  in  1837  by  providing  that  the  church  belonging  to 


ACTIONS  19 

llie  (jeniiaii  Kelijiioiis  Society  of  Roniaii  Catholics,  called 
the  Holy  Trinity  Cliurch,  in  the  city  of  Thiladelphia,  shall 
be  continued  as  a  German  Roman  Catholic  church,  and  con- 
ducted according  to  the  provisions  of  the  act  incorporating 
the  said  church,  so  long  as  the  same  should  be  required,  by 
at  least  twenty  regular  contributing  members,  qualified  to 
vote  at  the  elections  held  under  the  said  act  of  incov])ora- 
tion. 

The  board  of  trustees  was  regularly  elected  in  due  course 
according  to  the  charter  in  1850,  and  on  the  2yth  of  Novem- 
ber, 1850,  executed  a  deed  of  all  the  corporate  i)roperty 
owned  by  the  societj^  to  the  three  pastors  of  the  church,  in 
trust  for  various  purposes,  including  renting  of  pews  and 
interments  in  the  burial  ground.  All  receipts  and  income 
to  be  ajiplied  to  the  support  of  the  pastors  of  the  church, 
and  to  the  expenses  of  the  church  and  to  the  liquidation  of 
the  existing  debt.  A  school  maintained  by  the  society,  as 
authorized  by  the  original  charter,  was  to  be  free  by  the 
|»rovisiou  of  this  deed. 

Several  nunnbers  of  the  church  objected  to  this  transfer 
of  the  title  from  the  corporation  to  the  pastors,  and  applied 
for  an  injunction  restraining  its  consummation  and  any 
liirther  exercise  of  authority  by  the  trustees  or  pastors,  and 
also  the  appointment  of  a  trustee  by  the  court  to  take  charge 
of  the  i)roi)erty.  The  plaintiffs  alleged  n»ismanagement  by 
the  board  of  trustees.  The  court  held  that  tlie  deed  from 
the  board  of  trustees  to  the  pastors  was  in  excess  of  the 
authority  vested  in  the  board  by  the  charter,  and  the  deed 
was,  therefore,  invalid.  The  coui-t  also  held  that  the  jdain- 
tiffs,  as  members  of  the  chui-di.  could  maintain  an  adiun  to 
set  asi<le  the  conveyance  by  the  trustees,  and  restrain  rurtlicr 
operations  by  the  pastors  ]»en(Iiiig  the  determination  of  the 
issues.  Langolf  v  Seiberlitch,  '2  I'arsons  l^cjuily  Cases, 
(Pa.)  (54. 

Trustees,  Right  to  Sue.  In  an  action  brought  l»y  trustees 
in  their  own  names,  for  the  use  of  the  corporation  of  which 
they  are  oHIcers,  the  couit  may  reiidei-  jndgiiient  lor  llie  cor- 


I'O  Tin:   ri\  IL    LAW     AM)   Till:   CIHIiCII 

|)(H-iili(»ii.  Lcllwi^  iiiid  Ji;ii'loii,  lor  llu;  Mctli.  \1[k  (.'li.  v 
Tiioniloii,  IS  la.  r>(\. 

All  acluMi  on  a  contract  was  broiip;])!  bv  the  trustees  of  the 
society.  Tlie  defendant  objected  that  the  action  should  have 
been  bronchi  in  the  name  of  the  society  itself,  but  this  cbiini 
was  overruled,  and  the  action  was  held  <;ood  in  f(»nii.  It 
was  also  held  that  the  action  was  ])ioi)erly  brought  by  the 
successors  of  the  trustees  who  made  the  contract.  Skinner 
V  Kichardson,  P>oynton  &  Co.,  70  Wis.  4(U. 

Trustees'  Title  to  Office.  Trustees  must  show  title  to  ollice 
in  actions  relating  to  church  property.  Antones  et  al  v 
Eslava's  Heirs.  !►  Tort.  (Ala.)  T)!'!. 

Unincorporated  Associations.  An  unincorporated  associa- 
tion is  not  a  person,  and  has  not  the  power  to  sue  or  to  be 
sued.  But  in  the  case  of  religious  and  eleemosynary  associa- 
tions, the  members  and  managing  committee  who  incur  the 
liability,  assent  to  it,  or  subse<iuently  ratify  it,  become  per- 
sonally liable.  Burton  v  Grand  Kapids  School  Furniture 
Comi)any.  10  Tex.  (Mv.  Rep.  270. 

Unincorporated  Society.  The  trustees  de  tacto  of  an  unin- 
corporated society  may  maintain  an  action  for  trespass  on 
the  society's  i^roperty.    Green  v  Cady,  0  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  414. 


AFRICAN  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL 
CHURCH 

Organization,  21. 

Amending  charter,  21. 

Dismissing  pastor,  21. 

Municipal  ordinance  against  meetings,  21. 

Organization.  lu  181(1  the  Atrioaii  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  separated  from  the  white  Methodists  and  promul- 
gated their  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Discipline.  The  doctrine 
and  discipline  of  this  church  is  fashioned  in  a  great  measure 
after  that  of  the  white  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Eng- 
land and  America ;  in  which  the  election  and  ordaining  of 
the  priesthood  by  the  General  or  Annual  Conferences,  the 
ordiniilion  of  them  by  laying  on  of  hands  by  a  bishop  and 
elders,  and  the  fixing  of  their  appointments  by  the  bishop, 
ai'e  cardinal  points,  the  last  of  them  a  distinctive  one.  It 
is  (he  rock  on  which  the  church  is  founded,  and  on  which  it 
has  ]>ros])ered.  Remove  the  cliurch  from  it,  and  it  ceases  to 
be  Mctliodistic.  Commonwealth  ex  rel  Miller  v  Cornish, 
i:;  Pa.  St.  2SR. 

Amending  Charter,  fleeting  cannot  amend  charter  with- 
out i»revioiis  notice  that  amendment  would  be  proposed. 
Ke  African  Methodist  Ioj)iscoi»al  Union  Church,  28  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  11);5. 

Dismissing  Pastor.  By  its  charter  the  right  to  dismiss  a 
pastor  is  vested  in  the  incor])orators.  African  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  v  Clark,  25  La.  Ann.  282. 

Municipal  Ordinance  Against  Meetings.  Action  to  prevent 
city  from  interfering  with  as.semblies  of  colored  }>ersons  for 
religious  worship.  City  ordinance  prohibiting  such  assem- 
blage sustained.  African  Methodist  Episcoi)al  Church  v 
New  Orleans,  15  La.  Ann.  441. 

21 


AMERICAN  HOME  MISSIONARY  SOCIETY 

li('(lU('.st,  siistainod,  22. 

Bequest,  Sustained.  This  was  an  association  of  jxmsoiis  for 
clijirilahlc  and  rcli^^ions  inirposes,  hnt  was  not  incorporated 
at  the  death  of  the  testator,  who  resided  in  Connecticut. 
Tlie  New  York  law  was  held  to  ai>i»ly  in  this  case.  The  law 
of  the  domicile  of  the  legatee  governs  the  validity  of  the 
bequest.  A  voluntary  association  for  charitable  jdirposes 
cannot  take  a  legacy,  and  the  defect  is  not  cured  by  its  s\d»- 
sequent  incorporation.  Mapes  v  Home  Missionary  Society, 
33  Hun.  (N.  Y.)  300. 


22 


ARBITRATION 

Church  rule,  23. 

Church  Rule.  Au  arbitration  and  award  are  none  the  less 
biiidinj;  because  made  pursuant  to  the  regulations  of  a 
church  to  which  the  parties  belong.  In  this  case  the  arbitra- 
tion was  according  to  the  regulation  contained  in  the  Dis- 
cipline of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  the 
persons  interested  Avere  members  of  that  denomination. 
Payne  v  Crawford,  1)7  Ala.  G04. 


'^ 


ARTICLES  OF  RELIGION 

Description,  24. 

Description.  In  Eislioj)  v  Stone,  1  lltigg.  iUm.  Ko.  (Eng. ) 
424,  cousidoring  the  complaint  against  a  clergyman  for 
preaching  doctrines  contrai-y  or  repugnant  to  the  articles  of 
religion,  it  is  said  that  "these  articles  are  not  the  work  of  a 
dark  age;  they  are  the  ]>rodiictioii  of  men  eminent  for  their 
erudition  and  attachment  to  the  jnirity  of  true  religion. 
They  were  framed  by  the  chief  luminaries  of  the  reforme<l 
church,  with  great  care,  in  convocation,  as  containing  the 
fundamental  truths  deducihle,  in  tlieir  jmlgment,  from 
Scripture,  and  the  Legislature  has  adopted  and  established 
them  as  the  doctrines  of  our  church,  down  to  the  present 
time."  The  purpose  for  which  these  articles  were  designed 
is  stated  to  be,  the  avoiding  the  diversities  of  oi)inions,  and 
the  establishing  of  consent  touching  true  religion.  The 
defendant  was  deemed  to  have  violated  the  articles  by 
preaching  doctrines  contrary  thereto,  and  a  sentence  of 
deprivation  was  pronounced  against  him. 


24 


ASSOCIATE  REFORMED  CHURCH 

History  and  form  of  government,  25. 

Described,  26. 

Synod,  power,  27. 

Union  of  Associate  and  Associate  Reformed  Churches,  27. 

llnion  with  Presbyterian  Church,  2S. 

Missions,  bequests  sustained,  29. 

History  and  Form  of  Government.  The  Associate  Reformed 
Church  ill  this  loimliy  ori^'iiiatcd  in  the  union  of  two  bodies 
of  Scotch  Presbyterians,  known  as  the  Associate  and  the 
Kcform  Presbyterian  Churclies.  This  union  was  accom- 
plished in  1782. 

In  1850  negotiations  were  entered  into  for  a  union  of  the 
Associate  and  the  Associate  Kefornied  Churches.  These 
negotiations  were  coiuluctcd  by  the  general  synods  of  the 
churches,  and  at  length  in  1858,  resulted  in  a  union  of  these 
two  bodies,  and  the  formation  of  a  general  assembly  embrac- 
ing the  particuhii'  synods  and  in'csbyteries  of  the  Associate 
and  Associate  Reformed  Churches.  This  union  was  an  act 
of  the  general  synods  of  the  two  bodies  exclusively. 

This  is  a  Presbyterian  Church  adhering  to  a  government 
by  presbyters  or  ministers  of  equal  grade,  and  ruling  elders 
chosen  by  the  congregations.  This  government  is  adminis- 
tered through  church  sessions  or  congregational  judica- 
tories, through  presbyteries  consisting  of  the  ministers  of  a 
certain  district,  together  with  a  ruling  elder  from  each  con- 
gregation, and  through  jiarticular  and  general  synods  which 
are  constituted  from  the  jiresbyteries. 

The  Synod  of  New  York  has  occui»ied  the  position  and 
relations  of  a  particular  synod  in  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church,  at  least  since  1855,  in  whicji  year  it  united  with 
other  ])aTticuhn'  synods  of  the  same  coninumion,  known  as 


I'd         Till':  ('i\ii,  LAW  AM)  'riii;  ciiinrii 

llic  Synods  ol'  llic  W'csl,  and  a  Itody  was  consl  i  hih-d  oul  ol" 
I  lie  union  slylcd  iIh*  General  Synod  of  tin-  AssociaU;  Ke- 
loi-nicd  Clmrcli. 

The  orjjjaiiization  ol'  these  pai'licnlar  syiw^ds,  incliidin;;  thii 
Synod  of  New  York,  consists  of  a  moderator,  or  jiresidinj^ 
(►nicer,  and  a  clerlv.  Tlie  moderator  is  chosen  by  each  annual 
synod  to  preside  dnrinj;  tliat  synod,  and  it  is  also  his  duty 
to  open  tlie  session  of  the  next  ensuing  synod,  and  to  con- 
duct its  i)roceedin<'s  until  it  has  itself  become  organized  by 
the  choice  of  its  own  moderator.  The  book  of  discipline  and 
church  government  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church 
expressly  required  that  every  stated  meeting  of  a  syno<l 
shall  be  opened  with  a  sermon  and  i)rayer  b}'  the  moderator 
of  the  last  assembly',  and  that  he  shall  preside  until  another 
moderator  shall  be  chosen.  This  is  the  only  and  recognized 
mode  of  ])rocedure  in  these  assemblies;  unless  the  last  mod- 
erator is  absent,  when  the  oldest  minister  present  is  to  take 
his  place.     Peoide  v  Farrington,  22  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  204. 

Described.  In  lSo7  there  were  in  New  Y'ork  nineteen 
societies,  or  congregations,  duly  incorporated  under  the  law 
of  that  State  and  professing  the  same  articles  of  faith,  the 
came  church  discipline,  and  governed  by  one  and  the  same 
.synod,  or  church  judicatory,  called  "the  Associate  Reformed 
Synod  of  New  York,"  and  forming  a  distinct  body  of  Chris- 
tians, under  the  general  denomination  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church.  And  their  established  form  of  govern- 
ment is  Presbyterian,  having  sessions,  presbyteries,  and 
synods.  In  the  jeiw  ISOl  they  had  thirty  congregations, 
with  settled  ministers,  divided  into  seven  presbyteries, 
namely:  The  Presbytery  of  Washington  and  of  New  York, 
in  the  State  of  New  York;  the  first  and  second  of  Pennsyl- 
vania ;  the  first  and  second  of  Carolinas  and  Georgia,  an<l 
one  of  Kentucky;  and  those  presbyteries  met  and  formed  a 
synod,  called  "The  As.sociate  Reformed  Synod.''  In  1S02. 
this  Associate  Reformed  Synod  was  divided  into  four  par- 
ticular synods,  and  a  General  Synod  was  at  the  same  time 
formed,  to  hold  its  first  meeting  at  Greencastle.  on  the  last 


ASSOCIATE  KHFOKMIOI)  CilLKCU  '21 

Wednesday  of  May,  1804.  This  General  Synod  met  annu- 
ally, and  the  chuicli  continued  under  this  organization  until 
1822.  In  that  year  the  General  Synod  formed  a  union  with 
the  general  as.sembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Church  has  existed  in  this  country  for  many 
years,  as  a  sei)arate  or  distinct  brancli  of  the  Christian 
Church.  In  tlie  year  1T1)()  it  was  composed  of  several  presby- 
teries, and  one  synod  called  "the  Associate  Reformed 
Synod,"  which  consisted  of  those  presbyteries  met  together 
for  mutual  assistance,  and  for  managing  the  atlairs  of  the 
church  under  its  care.  This  form  of  government  by  presby- 
teries and  one  synod,  continued  until  1802,  during  all  which 
time  this  associate  synod  was  the  supreme  head  of  the 
church,  as  to  its  government  and  order.  In  1802  the  synod, 
by  the  assent  of  the  i)resbyteries,  I'csolved  to  divide  itself 
into  four  particular  synods,  and  to  form  a  general  synod, 
which  held  its  first  meeting  at  Greencastle,  in  Pennsylvania, 
on  the  last  AVednesday  of  Jsh\}\  1804.  This  general  synod 
was  com])osed  of  delegates  from  the  several  presbyteries, 
with  powers  expressly  defined  in  their  constitution.  In  1822 
b\^  the  articles  of  union  between  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  and  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church  was  merged  in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
This  attempted  union  was  invalid.  Ti'ustees  Associate  Re- 
formed Church  V  Trustees  Theological  Seminary,  4  N.  J. 
Eq.  77. 

Synod,  Power.  In  Trustees  Associate  Reformed  Church  v 
Trustees  Theological  Seminary,  4  X.  J.  Ia{.  77,  it  was  held 
that  the  General  Syu«Ml  of  the  Associate  Reformed  ('hurch 
had,  by  the  constitiition  of  the  s;iid  church,  no  authority  to 
do  any  act,  or  make  any  regulation  which  iulerfei-es  with 
the  established  order  of  the  <Iiui-(li  ;  therefore  that  the  art 
of  union  between  the  General  t^ynod  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church,  and  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  adoi)ted  on  the  21st  day  of  May,  1S22,  is 
invalid. 

Union  of  Associate  and  Associate  Reformed  Churches.     The 


L'S  TIIK  ('l\ll.   LAW    AM)  Till:  (III   ItCII 

subject  ol"  union  hctwfi'n  the  Associate  and  Associate  IJe- 
foi'ined  Churclies  Iiad  been  agitated,  contemplated,  and  dis- 
cussed l)v  tile  inembei-s,  sessions.  |»resl»3'tei-ies,  and  synods  *)f 
the  resi)ective  churches  for  a  period  of  more  than  tifteen 
years;  the  subject  having  engaged  no  small  share  of  the 
attention  of  Associate  SvuckIs  since  1S41,  when  a  committee 
on  the  subject  was  first  a])])ointed  by  the  synod.  In 
1S5G,  by  the  action  of  the  Associate  Synod,  the  basis  of  union 
was  sent  down  in  overtui-e  to  the  ])resbyteries  and  sessions 
to  report  thereon  at  the  next  meeting  of  the  synod.  In  l!S57 
the  l*resbytery  of  Iowa,  through  whi(h  the  sessions  within 
its  jurisdiction  made  their  returns  or  reports  to  the  synod, 
reported  nuauimously  in  favor  of  the  adoi)tion  of  the  basis 
of  union  without  proposing  any  amendment.  McBride  v 
J'orter,  17  la.  204.     See  I/nited  Presbyterian  (linrcii. 

Union  with  Presbyterian  Church.  The  Associate  Keformed 
Church  of  Newbnrgh,  New  York,  was  incorporated  under 
the  New  York  religious  c()ri)orati()iis  act  of  1813.  At  the 
time  of  the  decision  in  this  case  there  were  seventeen  other 
Associate  Reformed  Churches  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
incorporated  under  the  same  act,  associated  with  the  com- 
plainants, professing  the  same  articles  of  faith,  the  same 
church  discipline,  and  governed  by  one  and  the  same  synod, 
or  church  judicatory,  called  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod 
of  New  York,  forming  a  distinct  body  of  Christians,  under 
the  general  denomination  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church. 
Their  established  form  of  government  was  ])resl)vterial.  hav- 
ing sessions,  presbyteries,  and  synods.  The  denomination 
had  congregations  and  presbyteries  in  different  parts  of  the 
country,  which  presbyteries  met  and  formed  a  synod  called 
the  Associate  Reformed  Synod.  A  theological  school  was 
established  in  New  York  in  1802.  The  same  year  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Synod  was  divided  into  four  jKirticular 
synods,  and  a  General  S^nod  was  at  the  same  time  formed. 
This  General  Synod  met  first  in  1804,  and  the  church  con- 
tinued under  this  organization  until  1S22.  During  all  this 
time  the  librarv  of  the  theological  seminarv  and  the  church 


ASSOCIATE  REFORMED  CHURCU       L'O 

fimds  were  in  the  custody  of  thi.s  General  Synod,  who  by  the 
consent  of  the  church  exercises  general  superintendence  over 
their  property  and  funds.  In  1822  the  General  Synod 
formed  a  union  with  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  under  articles  of  agreement  which  permitted 
the  presbyteries  of  the  Associate  Ciiurch,  at  their  election, 
to  continue  a  separate  organization,  or  amalgamate  with  the 
General  Assend^ly  of  the  I'resbyterian  Churdi,  and  which 
l)rovi(led  for  tlie  consolidation  of  the  theological  seminary  in 
New  York  and  the  theological  seminary  at  Trinceton,  New 
Jersey.  Following  this  consolidation,  tlie  library  and  funds 
of  <he  theological  seminary  in  New  York  wei-e  transferred 
(o  the  seminary  at  I'rincelon.  Several  congregations  of  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church  declined  to  amalgamate  with 
the  Presbylei-ian  Asseml)ly,  and  conlinue*!  tlieir  independent 
existence  undci-  (he  name  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod 
of  New  York.  In  this  case  it  was  held,  among  other  things, 
that  ''the  General  Synod  liad  no  authority  to  do  any  act,  or 
make  any  regulation  which  should  interfere  with  the  estab- 
lislied  order  of  the  church."  It  was  the  obvious  inteuticm  of 
those  who  formed  the  union,  that  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  should  be  merged  in  the  l^resbyterian  Church  to  all 
intents  and  purjioses.  It  was  held  that  the  union  was 
invalid,  and  that  ihe  Associate  Reformed  Church  still  had 
tlie  same  rights  and  interests  in  the  books  and  funds  that 
they  had  before  the  adoption  of  the  articles  of  union.  Asso- 
(iate  Reformed  Churcli  v  Trustees,  Theological  Seminary, 
Princeton,  4  N.  J.  Eq.  77. 

Missions,  Bequests  Sustained.  In  Dickson  v  Montgomery, 
1  Swan  (Tenn.)  348,  be(piests  were  sustained  for  home  and 
foreign  missions  and  for  the  education  of  ministers  under 
the  direction  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South. 


BAPTIST  CHURCH 

Articles  of  faith  may  be  altered,  30. 

Bajitist  Assofiation,  31. 

ConproKation,  powers,  32. 

Creed,  32. 

English  toleration,  32. 

Government,  33. 

Majority  may  control  property,  34. 

Minority,  right  to  control  property,  35. 

Missions,  3G. 

Officers,  36. 

Pastor,  how  settled,  37. 

Property,  control  of,  37. 

Texas  General  Convention,  37. 

Articles  of  Faith  May  Be  Altered.  The  First  rinirch  of 
Dayton,  Ohio,  was  established  in  1824,  under  a  form  of  faith 
professed  by  those  who  called  themselves  I'articular  Bap- 
tists. In  July,  1827,  the  articles  of  faith  were  abrogated. 
In  November  of  the  same  year  trustees,  who  had  been  elected 
in  September,  took  title  to  land  as  trustees  of  tlie  society, 
lender  the  statute,  the  trustees  became  a  corporation,  and 
the  title  to  the  laud  became  vested  in  the  trustees  as  a  cor- 
l)oration.  A  house  of  worship  was  erected  with  contribu- 
tions from  members  of  tlie  society  and  others.  In  March, 
1829,  Mr.  Keyser,  one  of  the  trustees,  was  excluded  from  the 
society  on  charges,  and  another  trustee  was  elected  in  his 
place. 

On  llie  ."list  of  the  same  montli,  all  former  creeds  and 
symbols  were  abolished  by  the  society,  and  a  new  covenant 
introduced  by  which  the  New  Testament  was  declared  the 
only  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  Keyser  and  another  trustee 
brought  an  action  alleging  that  by  the  change  of  the  articles 
of   faith    the   society    ha«l   ceased    to   be   the    First   Baptist 

30 


BAPTIST  CHI  RCn  SI 

Churcli,  and  that  all  the  rij>hts,  etc.,  belonged  to  the  original 
First  Church,  which  they  alleged  consisted  of  themselves 
and  their  associates.  It  was  held  tiiat  a  religious  society 
does  not  necessarily  lose  its  proj^ert}'  by  ceasing  to  entertain 
certain  opinions.  A  Baptist  Church  is  in  itself  wholly 
separate  and  indojiendcnt,  and  at  liberly  to  form  its  own 
creed  and  looking  to  others  for  counsel  and  social  inier- 
course  only.  The  majority  luid  the  riglit  to  establisli  and 
alter,  at  i)leasure,  tlieir  articles  of  faith,  and  an  alteration 
of  such  articles,  or  even  an  a]>parent  abandonment  of  doc- 
trines formerly  entertained,  did  not  affect  their  riglit  to  con- 
trol the  projterty,  es]tecially,  as  in  this  case,  where  the  prop- 
erty was  not  acquired  under  any  trust  imposing  specilic 
articles  of  faith.    Keyser  v  Stansifer,  (>  Ohio  3(>3. 

Baptist  Association.  The  society  at  Mt.  Tabor,  Indiana, 
having  become  divided  into  two  factions,  a  controversy'  arose 
as  to  the  title  to  church  jiroperty.  The  local  society  had, 
on  its  organization,  ado])ted  articles  of  faith,  and  subse- 
quently adojited  certain  so-called  rules  of  decorum  regulat- 
iug  procedure  in  various  details.  This  local  society  was 
connected  with  another  Bai)tist  organization  known  as  the 
association,  and  described  as  the  Association  and  Council 
of  the  Regular  Baptist  Churches,  which  is  described  as  an 
annual  meeting  com])osed  of  messengers  carrying  a  letter 
from  each  church  belonging  to  the  association,  which  letter 
generally  gives  some  expression  of  the  continued  adherence 
of  the  chui'ch  to  their  articles  of  faith,  and  a  detailed 
account  of  the  condition  of  the  church.  On  this  letter  mes- 
sengers are  admitted  or  refused  membersliii>  in  the  associa- 
tion. 

Tliis  st)ciety  was  a  member  of  the  Danville  Association, 
composed  of  twenty-two  churches.  A  council  organized  on 
tlie  recpicst  of  llie  min<n-ity  (lecided  that  the  majoi'ity  faction 
had  departed  from  the  faith  of  the  church.  Ti>e  majority 
did  not  appear  before  this  council.  Afterwaid  another 
council  was  called  in  the  same  manner,  with  the  same 
attendance  and   result.      Subsequently   both    factions   sent 


:V2  Tin-:  CI  NIL   LAW   AM)  'I'HI':  CIIIKCII 

ic'ltcrs  iiiid  iiu'Nseii}j;c'rs  to  (lie  next  nieotiiig  of  llu,"  l>;iiivill(.* 
Associat  ion.  The  letter  from  the  minority  was  receive<l,  and 
its  nM'ss('nj;(M'  scatc*!.  Tlic  letter  fi-oni  tlie  niajoi'ity  was 
refnsed,  and  its  niessenjuers  were  not  admitted,  on  the 
ground  that  I  lie  majority  had  departed  from  the  articles  of 
faitli.  The  court  lield  tliat  while  tlie  aetion  of  the  councils 
and  associalion  was  only  advisory,  the  decision  of  the  asso- 
cialion  based  on  letters  from  each  faction  was  entitled  to 
••reat  weij^ht,  and  mi«;lit  safely  be  followe<l  by  llie  c(niit. 
Smith  et  al  v  re<ligo  et  al,  U5  Ind.  :j(il. 

Windham  v  Ulmer,  51)  So.  (Miss.)  810. 

Congregation,  Powers,  The  con«;regation,  by  a  large 
majority,  adojiled  a  resolution  requesting  tlie  pastor  to 
resign,  and  notice  was  given  to  the  pastor  accordingly, 
who  1  hereafter  entei-ed  the  church  on  several  occasions,  with 
force  ami  violence,  and  continued  to  exercise,  or  attemi»ted 
to  exercise,  the  functions  of  pastor  of  the  church  in  viola- 
tion of  the  resolution.  The  congregation  is  the  sole  legisla- 
tive and  judicial  body  of  the  Baptist  Church.  Those  who 
connect  themselves  with  it  voluntarily  assume  the  risk  of 
the  pro])riety  and  justice  of  congregational  action,  just  as 
those  who  become  I'resbyterians  or  Episcopalians  subject 
themselves  in  church  affairs  to  the  authority  of  synods  and 
councils.  The  court  sustained  the  resolution  excluding 
the  jjastor  from  oitice,  and  enjoined  him  from  further  use  of 
the  church  in  an  official  capacity.  Morris  Street  Baptist 
Church  V  Dart,  (17  S.  C.  3nS. 

Creed.  The  faith  of  the  Baptist  denomination  is  Calviu- 
istic,  and  it  is  briefly  stated  as  follows :  ''the  belief  in  orig- 
inal sin  or  total  depravity,  predestination,  particular 
redemi)tion,  eflectual  calling  and  perseverance  of  the  saints." 
l»ark  v  Chaplin.  1)0  la.  55. 

English  Toleration.  "The  Bai)tists  are  persons  the  Legis- 
lature have  thought  i)roper  so  far  to  countenance  as  a  de- 
nomination of  Christians  as  to  extend  the  toleration  to 
them,  standing  on  the  same  footing  as  Quakers,  another 
si)ecies  of  dissenters.''    A  charity  for  the  beuelit  of  a  Baptist 


BAPTIST  CHURCH  33 

minister  was  sustained  in  Attorney-General  v  Cock,  2  Ves. 
Sen.  (Eng.)  273. 

Government.  The  government  of  Baptist  churches  is 
purely  congregational,  wherein  the  majority  vote  of  the 
church  controls.  It  has  its  associations  and  conventions, 
voluntiirily  formed  for  certain  purposes,  but  these  are  not 
impowered,  and  did  not  assume  to  exercise  authority  over 
the  actions  of  the  churches.  Councils  are  constituted  for 
purposes  ]>urely  advisory  to  aid  by  tlieir  advice  and  counsel, 
l)erhaps  in  bringing  about  settlements  and  reconciliations 
when  dissensions  arise,  but  their  decisions  are  not  binding 
on  the  churclies.  The  association  and  conventions  have 
the  right  to  determine  their  own  membership,  and  this  is  all 
they  assumed  in  this  instance  to  do.  They  are  shown  not  to 
have  any  power,  under  tlie  organization  of  the  church,  to  bind 
the  actions  or  conscience  of  the  churches  and  their  members. 
N(me  of  tliese  bodies,  therefore,  fall  within  the  class  of 
church  judicatories  such  as  are  provided  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  churches  of  some  of  the  denominations  to  finally 
and  authoritatively  settle  such  disputes,  and  the  decisions 
of  which  on  questions  of  tlieology  and  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment are  received  as  binding  bj'  the  civil  courts.  Jarrell  v 
Sproles,  20  Tex.  Civ.  App.  387. 

Tliere  is  no  federal  head  to  Bai)tist  organizations.  Each 
church  society  manages  absolutely  its  affairs,  temporal, 
S])iritual,  and  doctrinal.  It  is  an  unqualilied  democracy  in 
wliich  tlie  majority  is  supreme.  And  this  majorily  consists, 
not  of  the  actual  membership  of  the  local  body,  but  the 
majority  that  may  chance  to  be  ])resent  at  any  of  tlie  regular 
or  stated  meetings  of  the  churcli.  McKobei-ts  v  Cloudy,  1!) 
Mo.  App.  2(1.    Windley  v  McCliney,  KJl  N.  C.  318. 

The  Ba])tist  Church  does  not  as  a  religious  sect,  or  de- 
iionnnation,  j)ossess  a  constitution  or  creed,  like  the  Presby- 
terian, Methodist,  and  many  other  diurches.  Its  form  of 
church  government  is  congregational,  and  therefore  purely 
democratic.  Each  clinrcli  is  a  distinct  organization,  inde- 
pendent of  all  otiiers.     Tiiere  are  no  internHMJiatc  jndirato- 


:u         Tin:  cixii.  law  and  tiii;  < hi  i;*  ii 

ries,  or  ju(Iic;il<M  y  (if  liiiiil  rcxisdi-y  power,  in  l>;i|)tisl  i^'ovcrii- 
inent.  ('oiisctnicnl  ly,  llic  ri;;lit  of  ;i|»|»c;il  docs  not  cxisl, 
I'^vcry  liaplisl  cliiii-cli  is,  llM'rcroi'c,  n  l;i\v  unto  il.M'lf  in 
nijittcrs  c((l('si;isli(;il.  W'liilo  what  ar(i  known  as  HaiMisl; 
Associa lions,  bolli  <lislri<t  aiul  State,  exist,  llicy  jxjsst'ss 
neither  ai)i)ellate  jurisdiction  nor  revisory  jjower,  Init  may 
advise  the  ehnrches,  withont  in  any  way  Idndinj^  Ihc  latter  to 
accept  such  advice.  In  the  ]>ai»tist  cinnc  li  llie  majority  of 
tlie  (•on<>rejiation  is  ordinarily  entitled  to  rnle,  and  it  is  but 
doing  justice  to  the  sect  to  say  that  the  majority  rarely 
abuses  its  power.  To  this  fact  and  the  simplicity  of  its  gov- 
ernment much  of  the  evangelistic  success  of  the  Ba]>tist 
Church  is  manifestly  due.     Poynter  v  Phel])S,  12!J  Ky.  o81. 

Majority  May  Control  Property.  The  seizure  of  the  church 
edifice  by  a  minority  of  the  congregation  against  the  wishes 
of  the  nuijority  was  condemned,  and  the  majority  was  put 
in  possession  of  tlie  property.    Bates  v  Houston,  (JO  Ga.  198. 

A  small  minority  of  the  society  met  and  elected  trustees 
who  claimed  the  right  to  the  church  property'.  It  was  held 
that  the  nuijority  who  adhered  to  the  faith  and  practice  of 
the  Ba])tist  Church  was  entitled  to  tlie  custody  and  control 
of  the  property.    Turpiu  v  Bagby,  1:38  Mo.  7. 

The  withdrawal  by  one  part  of  a  church  congregation 
from  the  original  body  of  it,  and  the  uniting  with  another 
church  or  denomination  is  a  relinquishment  of  all  rights  in 
the  church  abandoned.  The  mere  assemblage  in  a  church 
where  a  congregational  form  of  government  prevails  of  a 
majority  of  a  congregation  forcibly  and  illegally  excluded 
by  a  minority  from  a  church  editice  in  which  as  part  of  the 
congregation  they  had  been  rightfully  worsliiping,  in  an- 
other place,  the  majority  thus  excluded  maintaining  still  the 
old  church  organization,  the  same  trustees  and  the  same 
deacons,  is  not  such  a  relinquishment ;  and  the  majority 
thus  excluded  may  assert,  through  the  civil  courts,  their 
rights  to  the  church  ]>roi)erty.  Bouldin  v  Alexander,  15 
Wall.  (U.S.)  131. 

Differences  arose  in  this  i5;ocietv  over  the  selection  of  a 


BAPTIST  CHURCH  :)5 

j)astor  and  some  associalioii  (luestions.  Oue  of  tlie  iiiem- 
bers  who  made  charges  against  the  i)astor  was  tried  and 
expelled  from  membership  by  the  local  church.  The  court 
declined  to  consider  the  question  of  regularity  of  the  exjud- 
sion.  The  conveyance  of  the  church  property  was  to  the 
parties  appellant,  who  had  claimed  title  to  it  under  the 
original  deed.  A  small  fraction,  six  or  eight  persons  out  of 
about  two  hundred  and  thirty  members,  assumed  the  pos- 
session and  control  of  the  property,  but  it  was  hebl  that 
they  were  not  entitled  to  it  as  against  the  majority.  Igle- 
hart  V  Kowe,  20  Ky.  L.  Re.  821,  47  S.  W.  575. 

Minority,  Right  to  Control  Property.  The  society  i>ur- 
chased  land  and  erected  thereon  a  house  of  worship  in  1852, 
and  adopted  articles  of  faith  as  published  in  the  minutes  of 
the  Des  Moines  Baptist  Association  in  1848.  In  1885  the 
pastor  of  the  chuich  and  some  of  the  members  adopted  the 
principle  of  "sanctiftcation  by  a  second  experience,"  and  cer- 
tain members  who  op])osed  this  principle  were  expelled  from 
the  church.  The  excluded  mend)ers,  and  others  synii>atliiz- 
ing  with  them,  called  the  pastor  and  sought  to  obtain  pos- 
session of  the  church  ])roperty,  which  was  refused.  The  dif- 
ferences on  the  question  of  sanctilication  were,  by  agree- 
ment between  the  parties,  submitted  to  a  council  of  Baptist 
ministers,  which  decided  that  said  doctrine  was  not  in  har- 
mony with  the  teachings  of  the  Ba[)tist  denomination.  It 
was  held  that  the  adherents  of  said  doctrine  of  sanctifica- 
tion,  though  constituting  a  majority  of  the  whole  lunnber 
of  mendiers  of  said  churdi,  could  not  divert  the  use  of  its 
property  to  the  promulgation  of  doctrines  different  from 
the  faith  for  the  a<lvancement  of  which  the  church  was 
organized,  and  that  a  court  of  ecpiity  would  interfere  to  i»ro- 
tect  the  minority  in  having  the  trust  property  applied  in 
accord  with  the  original  intent.  The  decision  of  tlie  council 
was  binding  on  tlie  majority.  Mt.  Zion  Baptist  Churdi  v 
Whitmore,  8;{  la.  1:58. 

A  faction  in  tliis  society  re])u<liate(l  the  name  ''I>a]itist" 
and  ado[»ted  in  its  stead  "Tlie  Cinirch  of  Cod";  repudiated 


:u;         Tiir:  cixii.  law  and  tiii:  (in  i;*  ii 

Hit'  iiiiiiic  "Ml.  Ilrliii"'  ;iii*l  ;i(Io|ilc<I  iiislcijd  llic  iijiiiic  '•'I'alier- 
iKide  of  Christ,"  (Iius  clianfiiiijj;  Ilic  (Icsignatioii  of  Ilic  cliurch 
from  Mt.  ]I('lin  lijiptist  Clmrcli  lo  tlie  *'(.'lnii-(  li  of  (io«l, 
Tabcriiaclo  of  Clirisf."  Tlicy  (•xi)r(\ssly  T-cpiwlialcil  wll  «'rce<l« 
and  <len()iiiiiiati()iis  as  iiian-niade  devices.  This  faction 
elected  new  trustees,  and  directed  them  to  j)i'ocure  i)os- 
session  of  the  clnirch  i)roperty.  It  was  hehl  that  tliis  fac- 
tion, though  constituting  a  majority  of  the  society,  iiad  no 
right  to  the  ])roperty,  and  that  the  minority  wliich  retained 
the  name  and  faith  of  the  original  society,  was  entitle<l  to 
the  possession  and  control  of  such  property.  ^Mt.  Ilelm 
Baptist  Church  v  Jones,  70  Miss.  488. 

Missions.  I'roperty  owned  by  the  Maine  Baptist  Mission- 
ary Convention,  a  corporation  organized  for  the  promulga- 
tion and  diJfusion  of  Christian  knowledge  and  intelligence 
through  their  agency  as  an  institution  of  domestic  missions, 
was  held  exempt  from  taxation.  Maine  Baptist  Missionary- 
Convention  V  Portland,  Or)  Me.  02. 

Testatrix  bequeathed  the  residue  of  her  estate  to  the  Evan- 
gelical Baptist  Benevolent  and  Missionary  Society  for  the 
benefit  of  poor  churches  of  the  city  of  Boston  ami  vicinity. 
The  society  was  chartered  in  1857  for  the  purpose  of  secur- 
ing the  constant  maintenance  in  Boj^ton  of  evangelical 
preaching  for  the  young  and  destitute,  with  free  seats;  for 
the  employment  of  colporteurs  and  missionary  laborers  in 
Boston  and  elsewhere;  for  the  purpose  of  providing  suitable 
central  apartments  to  other  and  kindred  benevolent  and  mis- 
sionar}'  societies,  and  for  the  general  purj)ose  of  ministering 
to  the  spiritual  wants  of  the  needy  and  destitute.  The  be- 
quest was  held  to  be  a  public  charity  and  was  valid.  Mc- 
Alister  v  Burgess,  1(>1  Mass.  2(i0. 

Officers.  The  only  oflScers  of  a  Baptist  church  are  the 
jtastor  and  the  deacons.  A  Baptist  church  is  distinct  from 
and  independent  of  all  others,  having  no  ecclesiastical  con- 
nection with  any,  though  maintaining  a  friendly  intercourse 
with  all.  The  government  is  administered  by  the  body  of  the 
members,  where  no  one  enjoys  a  preeminence,  but  all  enjoy 


BAI'TIST  CHlKCIl  37 

an  equality  of  rights.     Calvary  Baptist  Church  v  Dart,  08 
S.  C.  221. 

Pastor,  How  Settled.  In  New  England,  aet-ording  to  Dr. 
Wayland,  the  couii»any  of  Baptist  worshipers  is  divided  into 
two  organizations,  the  church  and  the  society,  and  these 
two  organizations  have  coordinate  jurisdiction  in  the  settle- 
ment of  a  minister.  Leicester  v  Fitchburg,  7  Allen  (Mass.) 
!)0. 

Property,  Control  of.  Laud  was  conveyed,  for  a  nominal 
consideration,  to  persons  described  as  trustees  of  the  Ger- 
man Baptist  church  to  be  erected  thereon.,  which  church 
should  be  known  and  designated  as  the  Walhonding  Union 
Church,  and  the  same  to  be  held  by  said  trustees  and  their 
successors  in  office  so  long  as  said  premises  should  be  occu- 
[tied  as  a  place  of  religious  worship  for  said  church.  It  was 
held  that  the  language  of  the  deed  did  not  justify  a  claim 
that  the  parties  intended  a  union  of  persons  of  different  reli- 
gious beliefs,  conferring  on  them  the  right  to  the  use  of  the 
church.  The  trustees  of  the  Gernuni  Baptist  Church  there- 
fore had  the  right  to  exclude  others  from  the  use  of  the 
church  edifice.    Miller  v  Milligau,  (;  Ohio,  Dec.  1000. 

It  seems  that  under  the  form  of  government  ajtplicable  to 
Baptist  churches,  the  control  of  the  church  i>roperty  is 
lodged  in  the  congregation  and  trustees  of  the  church,  and 
not  in  the  deacons.    Di-cw  v  Hogan,  2(>  App.  I).  C.  55. 

Texas  General  Convention.  This  convention,  composed  of 
many  local  churches,  was  incorporated  under  the  laws  of 
Texas.  The  constitution  declared  that  "the  object  of  this 
convention  shall  be  missionary  and  cMhicatioual,  tlie  promo- 
lion  of  harmony  of  feeling  and  concert  of  action  anu^ng 
Baptists  and  a  system  of  operative  measures  for  the  promo- 
tion of  the  interests  of  the  Kedeemer's  kingdom."  A  boar<l 
of  missions  was  established.  About  18J)4  a  controversy 
arose  concerning  the  work  and  ollicers  of  the  board.  The 
controversy  relating  to  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of 
the  convention  was  carried  into  that  body  at  its  meeting 
in   1807.     The  plaintiff',  who  was  the  cditoi-  of  the  leading 


430506 


;:s  T\\\:  cix  ii.  law  and  tiii;  ("IIiijcii 

JJ;i|)(isl  jx'riod'ual  in  Texas,  had  made  sctiiic  (  ril  icisins  on 
the  a«liiiiiiistration.  At  the  meetinj;  in  ls!>7  his  rij^ht  to  a 
seat  was  clialleiiged  on  the  {ground  of  personal  unfitness. 
The  challenge  was  sustained  by  the  convention  and  tlie 
plaintiff  was  excluded  from  nienibershii*.  The  cliallenge  Avas 
imhlislied  in  (he  minutes,  and  in  a  newspaper  ]Mil)lis]ie<l  by 
one  of  the  defendants.  It  was  held  that  tln^  publication  of 
<'harji;es  of  dishonorable  conduct  and  moral  unfitness  was 
libelous  per  se.    Cranfill  v  Hayden,  1)7  Texas  544. 


BELLS 

Chime,  bequest  sustained,  39. 
l-'ixturc,  39. 

Injunction  against  ringing,  39. 
Nuisance,  40. 

Chime,  Bequest  Sustained.  Testator  bequeathed  to  the 
wardens  and  vestrymen  of  this  society  money  to  be  used  lor 
the  i^urcliase  of  a  chime  of  bells  for  the  benelit  of  the  church. 
The  society  was  incorporated.  The  corporation  was  held 
entitled  to  take  by  will,  and  the  bequest  was  sustained. 
Eastman's  Estate,  GO  Cal.  308. 

Fixture.  A  bell  had  been  used  in  the  belfry  of  an  old 
church  building  of  a  religious  society.  A  new  building  was 
erected  and  the  old  one  sold,  the  bell  being  reserved.  A 
tower  was  erected  on  the  new  building  for  the  bell,  and  a 
tem])orary  framework  was  also  erected  on  the  lot,  upon 
wliich  the  bell  was  placed  and  used  for  church  purposes, 
with  the  intention  on  the  part  of  the  authorities  of  the 
society  to  i)lace  it  permanentlj'  in  the  tower.  It  remained 
in  the  temporary  frame  for  nearly  a  year,  and  was  then 
removed  to  the  place  designed  for  it.  It  was  held  that  it 
never  ceased  to  be  a  fixture,  and  tliat  it  was  not  subject  to  a 
kn^y  of  an  execution  as  ])ers()nal  property.  Congregational 
Society,  Dubuque  v  Fleming,  11  la.  5.'>8. 

Injunction  against  Ringing.  In  Sol  tan  v  De  Held,  i>  I'^-ng. 
L.  and  Kq.  104,  it  was  liehl  that  tlie  ringing  of  church  bells 
might  in  some  instances  be  a  i>rivate  and  also  a  jtnblic  nui- 
sance, and  an  injunction  was  granted  on  the  ajtplication  of 
a  nearby  resident  against  the  ringing  of  church  bells,  so  far 
as  they  occasioned  an  annoyance  to  the  plaintilV  and  his 
family.  The  evi<lence  showed  that  bells  were  rung  live  limes 
each  day,  five  days  in  the  week,  six  times  on  Satnrday,  and 

39 


Ill  'I'm;  riN'ii.  i,.\w  AM)  'I'lii:  ciii  kcii 

otlc'iicr  on  Siimhiy,  ;il  lirsl  Ix-Liimiiiiy;  Jis  curly  ;is  livr  A.  M. 
and  Ix'iiij;  riiiij;  lioiii  fiNc  lo  Icii  minutes  each  time. 

Wlu'ro  it  is  cjciu-  llml  llic  striking  of  a  clock,  and  the 
ringinj;  of  a  chime  of  hells  from  a  church  tower  interferes 
with  tlie  y)hysical  comfort  of  ordinary  persons  livinj;  adja- 
cent thereto,  an  injunction  will  lie  to  restrain  the  striking 
of  the  clock  during  the  night  and  the  ringing  of  the  chimes 
exce])t  as  a  summons  to  religious  worshij).  Leete  v  Pilgrim 
Congregational  Society,  14  Mo.  Aj*]).  51)0. 

It  ai)i)eared  that  the  hells  of  a  church  were  hung  at  such 
a  level  in  their  i»ro\imity  to  surrounding  buildings  as  to 
cause  such  an  annoyance  as  amonnt(-d  to  a  serious  injury  to 
the  ]jersons  residing  in  the  neighhorhood.  An  injunction 
was  granted  restraining  the  ringing  of  the  bells.  Harrison 
V  St.  Mark's  Church,  12  Phila.  (Pa.)  259. 

Nuisance.  A  person  living  near  a  church  in  which  a  bell 
was  rung  for  ordinary  church  services  and  purposes  was  by 
the  ringing  of  the  bell  thrown  into  convulsions  while  suffer- 
ing from  sunstroke,  and  his  recovery  was  thereby  retarded. 
It  was  held  that  the  custodian  of  the  church,  whose  duty 
was  to  ring  the  bell,  was  not  liable  as  for  maintaining  a 
nuisance.    Kogers  v  Elliott,  14G  Mass.  349. 


BIBLE 

inspii-ation,  41. 

New  Testament,  41. 

Not  a  sectarian  book,  41. 

Old  Testament,  42. 

Protestant  translations,  42. 

Schools,  use  in,  43. 

Versions,  King  James  and  Douay  compared,  46. 

Inspiration.  See  Gudiuiindson  v  Tliiiigvalla  Lutlierau 
Cliui'ch,  150  N.  ^V.  (N.  I).)  750,  for  an  interesting  discnssion 
of  the  doctrine  of  tlie  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  especially 
as  applied  by  Lutherans. 

New  Testament.  Used  in  administering  oaths.  Rex  v 
liosworth,  2  Str.  (Eng.)  IIUJ. 

Not  a  Sectarian  Book.  In  Hackett  v  Brooksville  Graded 
School  Disli-ict,  27  Ky.  L.  1021,  considering-  the  quest i<»ii 
whether  the  King  -lames  version  of  the  Bible,  or  any  version, 
could  be  considered  a  sectarian  book,  the  court  said : 

"There  is  ])erha])s  no  book  that  is  so  widely  used  and  so 
highly  res]>ected  as  the  Bible.  No  other  that  has  been  Iraiis- 
liited  into  as  many  tongues.  No  other  that  has  h;id  such 
marked  influence  u])Ou  the  Imbits  and  life  of  the  world.  It 
is  not  the  least  of  its  marvelous  attribnies  that  it  is  so 
ciitholic  lli;il  every  seeming  |»h;ise  <)r  belief  linds  coiiiroiM  in 
its  compi-ehensive  ]>recepls.  M;iny  trjinslalions  of  it,  and  of 
parts  of  it,  have  been  made  from  lime  lo  lime  since  two  <u" 
three  centuries  before  the  beginning  of  Ihe  (Miiislian  era. 
And  since  the  discovery  of  the  art  of  jtrinting  and  Ihe  manu- 
facture of  paper  in  the  sixteenth  century  a  great  many 
<'ditions  of  it  have  been  ])rinted. 

"The  result  has  been  Ihiit  while  many  editions  of  the 
sevei-al  trjinslntions  luive  bi'cn   iiuide.  those  b;ised   upon  Ihe 

41 


42         'iMir:  ('i\  II.  LAW  AM)  Till:  ("iniccn 

revision  coiiipilctl  iimlci-  llic  rcij^ii  of  Kiiij;'  .lames  I,  1(»()7- 
KJll,  iiiKJ  \(M-_v  ;^<'iier;illy  used  l»y  ri'olestaiils.  and  tli(;  one 
compiled  at  Doiiay  some  lime  |»re\i()ns,  and  wliicli  was  later 
adopted  by  the  Konian  Calliolic  Clnii-cli,  as  tlio  only 
authentic  version,  are  the  most  commonly  used  in  this 
country. 

"That  the  Bible,  or  any  particular  edition,  has  l)een 
adopted  by  one  or  more  denominations  as  authentic,  or  by 
them  asserted  to  be  inspired,  cannot  make  it  a  sectarian 
book.  The  book  itself,  to  be  sectarian,  must  show  that  it 
teaches  the  peculiar  dogmas  of  a  sect  as  such,  and  not  alone 
that  it  is  so  comprehensive  as  to  include  them  by  the  ])artial 
interpretation  of  its  adherents.  It  is  not  the  authorship, 
nor  mechanical  composition  of  the  book,  nor  the  use  of  it, 
but  its  contents  that  give  it  its  character.  The  history  of 
a  religion  including  its  teachings  and  claim  of  authority,  as, 
for  example,  the  writings  of  Confucius  or  Mohammed,  might 
be  profitably  studied.  Why  may  not  also  the  wisdom  of 
Solomon  and  the  life  of  Christ?  If  the  same  things  were  in 
any  other  book  than  the  Bible,  it  would  not  be  doubted  that 
it  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  school  boards  and  teach- 
ers whether  it  was  expedient  to  include  them  in  the  com- 
mon school  course  of  study  without  violating  the  impar- 
tiality of  the  law  concerning  religious  beliefs." 

Old  Testament.  Used  in  administering  oaths  to  Jews.  Rex 
V  Bosworth,  2  Str.  (Eng.)  1113. 

Protestant  Translations.  For  more  than  three  centuries  it 
has  been  the  boast  and  exultation  of  the  Protestants,  and  a 
complaint  and  grievance  of  the  Ronuin  Catholics  that  the 
various  translations  of  the  Bible,  es]tecially  of  the  Xew 
Testament,  into  the  vernacular  of  ditlereut  peoples,  have 
been  the  chief  controversial  weapon  of  the  former,  and  the 
principal  cause  of  the  undoing  of  the  latter.  For  the  making 
of  such  translations,  Wyclitfe,  Luther,  Tyndale,  and  others 
have  been  commended  and  glorilied  by  one  party,  and  de- 
nounced and  anathematized  by  the  other.  Books  containing 
such   translations  have  been   committed   to   the   flames   as 


BIBLE  4:1 

heretical,  and  their  translators,  printers,  jniblishers,  and  dis- 
tribntors  i)ersecnted,  inii)risoned,  tortnred,  and  i)nt  to  death 
for  participating?  in  their  production  and  distribution. 
State  V  i^clieve,  05  Xeb.  853. 

Schools,  Use  in.  The  directors  of  the  public  scliool  per- 
mitted the  rea<ling-  of  the  I'rotestant,  or  King  James,  version 
of  the  Bible  in  the  school,  and  also  the  singing  of  I'rotestant 
hymns.  The  jdaintiffs,  Koman  Catholics,  protested  against 
the  King  James  version,  insisting  that  the  only  correct  ver- 
sion was  that  known  as  the  Douay  version.  The  reading  of 
the  Bible  in  the  school  was  without  note  or  comment,  and 
was  not  intended  for  the  purpose  of  imi)arting  religious 
instruction.  It  appeared  that  a  convenient  room  was  set 
apart  for  the  use  of  Roman  Catholic  children  during  tlie 
opening  exercises,  and  that  they  were  not  compelled  to 
attend  such  opening  exercises  where  the  Bible  was  read,  and 
the  hymns  being  snng. 

One  objection  made  by  plaintiffs  to  the  use  of  the  Bible  in 
the  schools  under  defendants'  control  is  that  they  use  the 
Protestant,  or  King  James  version,  which  idaintilfs  believe 
to  be  sectarian  in  character,  and  which  has  been  so  declared 
by  the  highest  ecclesiastical  court  of  the  church  to  which  the 
plaintiffs  belong;  and  by  the  same  tribunal  has  been  declared 
an  incorrect  translation  of  the  original  writings  through 
which  the  Deity  has  made  himself  known  to  men;  also  that 
the  said  I'rotestant  Bible  is  incomplete,  many  portions  of 
the  true  Bible  liaving  been  omitted  or  excluded  therefrom; 
and  that  the  Douay  version  is  the  only  correct  one.  The 
school  directors  maintained  that  the  King  James  version 
was  more  nearly  correct  than  the  Douay  version.  The  conrt 
said :  "We  have  not  been  able  to  find  authority  or  prefer- 
ence given  by  our  law  to  any  particular  version  of  the 
Scriptures  of  truth,  and  must  therefore  conclude  tliat  all 
versions  stand  equal  before  the  law.  If  the  school  directors 
have  power  to  authorize  the  use  of  one  version  in  the  public 
schools,  they  had  power  to  authorize  the  use  of  the  other." 
The  Bible  is  not  sectarian  iii  a  legal  sense. 


44  Tin:  ('l\  IL   LAW   AMI  Till:  ("III   IJCH 

'i'iic  [•riii(i|ilc  on  wliirli  scIkmOs  wcic  <'sliibli.slu;(l  was  not 
a  iT^Mi'd  lor  Hh-  cliildicii  ;is  iiuli\  idiia Is,  Iml  as  a  part  of  an 
or^ianizcd  coinnuinit y.  1'Im*  schools  are  a  means  adoptc*!  by 
llu'  stale  to  woi'k  out  a  liiyliei-  rivilizalion  and  Ji-ecdoni. 
They  have  not  been  lonndcd  Tor  inivalc  bcnclit.  I»nt  lor  the 
l»nhli('  weal.  They  are  the  ontjjji'owlh  of  stale  policy  for  the 
encouragement  of  virtue  and  the  i)revention  of  vice  and 
innnorality,  and  are  based  upon  i)nblic  conviction  of  what  is 
necessary  for  jnddic  safely. 

Education  comprehends  all  that  .series  of  insti'iwtion  and 
discipline  whicl)  is  intended  to  enlip;hten  the  understanding, 
correct  the  temper,  and  form  manners  and  habits  of  jouth, 
and  fit  them  for  usefulness  in  their  future  stations. 

The  morality  which  the  state  deems  it  important  to  culti- 
vate must  be  tlie  morality  which  is  rejiarded  necessary  for 
the  support  of  the  laws  and  institutions  of  the  state;  this 
must  be  the  morality  on  which  they  are  based,  and  this  is 
the  morality  of  the  Bible.  It  would  seem  to  follow,  there- 
fore, that  the  source  of  that  morality  is  not  excluded,  but 
that  the  Bible  may  be  used  for  moral  culture  of  the  pupils 
in  the  public  schools.  Hart  v  Sclnxd  District,  Throopsville, 
2  Lancaster  Law  Ke.  (Pa.)  :U7. 

The  use  in  the  public  schools  for  fifteen  minutes  at  the 
close  of  each  day's  session,  as  a  supplemental  textbook,  or 
reading,  of  a  book  entitled  "Readings  from  the  Bible."  which 
is  largely  made  up  of  extracts  from  the  Bible,  emphasizing 
the  moral  ])recei)ts  of  the  Ten  Conunandments.  where  the 
teacher  is  forbidden  to  make  any  comment  upon  the  matter 
therein  contained,  and  is  required  to  excuse  from  that  part 
of  the  session  any  pui>il  ujion  api>lication  of  his  jiarent  or 
guardian,  is  not  a  violation  of  the  Michigan  constitution, 
article  4,  s.  41,  i)rohibiting  the  Legislature  from  diminishing 
or  enlarging  the  civil  or  political  rights.  ]irivileges  and  ca- 
pacities of  any  person  on  account  of  his  opinion  or  belief  con- 
cerning nmtters  of  religion.  I*eitfer  v  Board  of  Education, 
Detroit,  118  Mich.  500. 

The  school  committee  in  charge  of  the  public  schools  in 


BIBLE  45 

Ellsworth,  Maiue,  made  an  order  directing  that  the  English 
Protestant  version  of  the  Bible  should  be  used  in  all  the 
public  schools  of  that  town,  and  that  all  the  scholars  in  the 
schools  who  were  of  sufficient  capacity  to  read  therein, 
should  be  required  to  read  that  version  in  schools.  The 
plaintiff's  daugi)ter  refused  to  read  the  Bible,  as  required, 
and  was  expelled  from  school.  The  father  brought  an  action 
for  damages,  but  it  was  held  that  he  could  not  maintain  an 
action.    Donahoe  v  Richards,  .38  Me.  37G. 

In  Curran  v  White,  22  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  Ee.  201,  it  was  held  that 
mandamus  was  not  the  proper  remedy  to  prevent  the  reading 
of  the  Bible  in  public  schools.  Incidentally,  the  court  cited 
authorities  to  show  that  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  schools, 
either  the  King  James  or  the  Douay  version,  was  not  in 
contravention  of  any  constitutional  provision. 

The  constitution  of  Ohio  does  not  enjoin  or  require  reli- 
gious instruction,  or  the  reading  of  religious  books,  in  the 
public  schools.  Cincinnati  Board  of  Education  v  Minor,  23 
Ohio  St.  211. 

The  Wisconsin  constitution  prohibits  sectarian  instruc- 
tion in  public  schools.  In  State  ex  rel  Weiss  v  Edgerton 
District  School,  TO  Wis.  177,  7  L.  R.  A.  330,  it  was  held  that 
the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  schools  is  a  violation  of  this  pro- 
vision. It  was  also  held  that  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in 
public  schools  made  the  schools  a  place  of  worship,  as  pro- 
inbited  by  the  constitution,  it  appearing  that  no  one  should 
be  compelled  to  attend  a  place  of  worship  against  his  will ; 
also  that  such  reading  of  tlie  Bible  made  the  school  a  reli- 
gious seminary  within  the  constitutional  provision  prohib- 
iting puldic  aid  to  such  a  seminary. 

The  Iliad  may  be  read  in  the  schools  without  inculcating 
a  belief  in  the  01ym[)ic  divinities,  and  the  Koran  may  be 
read  without  teaching  the  Moslem  faith.  Why  may  not  the 
Bible  also  be  read  without  indoctrinating  children  in  the 
creed  or  dogma  of  any  sect?  Its  contents  are  largely  his- 
torical and  moral ;  its  language  is  nnequaled  in  ])urity  and 
elegance;  its  style  has  never  been  surpassed.     Among  the 


40  Till:  <I\'IL   LAW   AM)  Till:  (lirKCH 

(•|;issi(s  (»r  <»iir  iilciM  t  iiic  it  shimis  picciiiiiicnl.  The  iMct 
that  the  Kin«^  James  translation  may  be  used  to  inculcate 
sectarian  doctrines  atloi-ds  ua  pn'suin[)tion  that  it  will  he 
so  used.  The  law  does  not  forbid  the  use  of  the  Bible  in 
either  version  in  tlie  public  schools;  it  is  not  proscribed 
either  by  the  constitution  or  the  statutes,  and  the  courts 
have  no  right  to  declare  its  use  to  be  unlawful  because  it  is 
l>ossible  or  probable  that  those  who  are  privileged  to  use  it 
will  misuse  the  jirivilege  by  attenii>ting  to  i)roi)agate  their 
own  peculiar  theological  or  ecclesiastical  views  or  oi)inions. 
State  v  Scheve,  05  Neb.  85:5. 

Whether  it  is  ])rudent  or  ]>olitic  to  j)ermit  Bible  reading 
in  the  i)ublic  schools  is  a  question  for  the  school  authorities 
to  determine;  but  whether  the  ]»ractice  of  Bible  reading  has 
taken  the  form  of  sectarian  instruction  in  a  particular  case 
is  a  question  for  the  courts  to  determine  upon  evidence.  It 
cannot  be  presumed  that  the  law  has  been  violated;  the 
alleged  violation  must  in  every  instance  be  established  by 
competent  ])roof.  If  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  schools  is  an 
irritant  element,  the  question  whether  its  legitimate  use 
shall  be  continued  or  discontinued  is  an  administrative  and 
not  a  ju<licial  question  ;  it  belongs  to  the  schocd  authorities, 
not  to  the  courts.    State  v  Scheve,  (55  Neb.  85:>. 

Versions,  King  James  and  Douay  Compared.  Tt  has  been 
suggested  that  the  English  Bible  is,  in  a  special  and  limited 
sense,  a  sectarian  book.  To  be  sure,  there  are,  according 
to  the  Catholic  claim,  vital  jioints  of  ditference  with  respect 
to  faith  and  morals  between  it  and  the  Douay  version. 
In  a  l*ennsylvania  case,  cited  by  counsel  for  respondents, 
the  author  of  the  opinion  says  that  he  noted  over  fifty  points 
of  difference  between  the  two  versions — some  of  them  im- 
jwrtant  and  others  trivial.  These  differences  constitute 
the  basis  of  some  of  the  i>eculiarities  of  faith  and  jiractice 
that  distinguish  Catholicism  from  I'rote.stantism  and  make 
the  adherents  of  each  a  distinct  Christian  sect.  State  v 
Scheve.  (15  Neb.  85.*>. 


BISHOP 

First  Protestant  Episcopal  in  America,  47. 
Legacy  to  establish  in  America,  47. 
Office  not  a  corporation,  47. 
Witness,  meaning  of  canon,  48. 

First  Protestant  Episcopal  in  America.  There  was  no  bishop 
of  tlie  rrotestaiit  Ki)is(opal  (.'hurch  in  America  until  after 
the  Kevolutiou,  Bishop  Seabury  of  Connecticut,  consecrated 
in  1784,  being  the  first  American  bishop.  Bartlett  v  Hip- 
kins,  7()  M(l.  5. 

Legacy  to  Establish  in  America.  An  English  legacy  for  the 
)>uip()se  of  establishing  a  bishop  in  America,  a  bishop  not 
liaving  yet  been  appointed,  was  sustained,  but  the  chancellor 
said  the  money  must  remain  in  court  until  the  appointment 
of  a  bishop.  Attorney  General  v  Bishop  of  Chester,  1  Bro. 
C.  Cases  (Kng.  i  444.  The  case  does  not  show  the  date  of  the 
will,  nor  the  date  of  testator's  death. 

Office  Not  a  Corporation.  The  office  of  bishop  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  is  not  a  coritoration,  and  there  is  no  perpet- 
ual succession  if  property  is  conveyed  to  him  in  trust;  sucli 
trust  on  his  decease  vests  in  the  court  and  not  in  a  suc- 
cessor nominated  by  tlie  bi.shop.  Dwenger  v  Geary,  1K{ 
hid.  10(5. 

The  law  of  Ireland  does  not  recognize  the  corporate  char- 
acter of  a  Koman  Catholic  Archbishop  of  Cashel  or  of  a 
Koman  Catholic  Bishop  of  Waterford  and  Lismore,  and  a 
bequest  to  them  and  to  their  successors  was,  therefore,  hebl 
void,  but  the  bequest  was  sustained  to  the  extent  tliat  the 
bishops  might,  under  the  direction  of  the  court,  administer 
the  trust  during  their  joint  lives.  Attorney  General  v 
Tower,  1  Ball  &  B.  Kep.  (Ir.)  145. 

47 


48         Till']  ("i\  iL  \..\\y  AM)  'I'lir;  cmiicn 

Witness,  Meaning  of  Canon.  A  l)islH>[»  in  the  I'l'olcstant 
lCl>lK('()i)al  Clmrch  is  a  ('oinpclcnt  wilncss  to  piovc  llic  mean- 
ing of  tlic  woi'ds  ''pai'ish"  ami  "rector"  as  iiiidcisfood  by 
llio  canons  of  the  church.  Bird  v  St.  Mark's  Church,  Water- 
loo, (12  la.  ~)(u. 


BLASPHEMY 


Described,  49. 
Historical  sketch,  50. 


Described.  In  a  ca.se  under  the  Massachusetts  act  of  1782, 
which  i)rohibite(l  any  ])ers<)n  from  wilfully  blaspheniinjjj  the 
holy  uanie  of  God,  by  denying,  cursing,  or  contumeiionsly 
reproaching  God,  his  creation,  government,  or  final  judg- 
ing of  the  world,  the  coiirt  said  that  "in  general,  blasphemy 
may  be  described  as  consisting  in  si)eaking  evil  of  the  Deity 
with  an  impious  purpose  to  derogate  from  the  Divine 
Majesty,  and  to  alienate  the  minds  of  others  from  the  love 
and  reverence  of  God.  It  is  i)urposely  using  words  con- 
cerning God  calculated  and  designed  to  inii»air  and  destroy 
the  reverence,  respect,  and  confidence  due  to  him  as  the  intel- 
ligent creator,  governor,  and  judge  of  the  world.  It 
embraces  the  idea  of  detraction,  when  u.sed  toward  the 
Sui)reme  Being;  as  'calumny'  usually  carries  the  same  idea 
when   api»lie(l   to  an  individual." 

The  court  also  said  that  the  statute  did  not  prohibit  the 
fullest  inquiry  and  the  freest  discussion,  for  all  honest  and 
fair  i)urj»oses,  one  of  which  is  Ihe  discovery  of  truth.  It 
admits  the  freest  inquiry,  when  the  general  pur])ose  is  the 
discovery  of  truth,  to  whatever  result  such  in(iuiries  may 
lead.  It  does  not  prevent  the  simple  and  sincere  avowal 
of  a  disbelief  in  (he  existence  and  attributes  of  a  supreme, 
intelligent  being,  ui>on  suitable  and  jiroper  occasions.  The 
statute  ju-ohibiling  Idasphenn'  was  not  rei)Ugnant  to  the 
constitutional  i»rovision  guaranteeing  religious  toleration. 
Commonwealth  v  Knecland,  20  Tick.   (Mass.)  200. 

The  free,  equal,  and  undisturbed,  enjoyment  of  religious 
opinion,  whatever  it  may  be,  and  free  and  decent  discussion 
on  any  religious  subject  is  granted  and  secured,  but  to  revile, 

49 


50  TIFi:  ('l\II.   LAW  AM)  Till;  ("IIIIMMI 

w  itii  iii;ilici(»us  ;iihI  l»l;is|ili('in(tiis  con tciii|»t ,  llic  i-cli;xi*>ii  |»i"<>- 
Ccsscd  l»y  ;iliii<»sl  tlic  whole  (■oiiiimiiii ty,  is  :iii  ;il»iisc  of  tli;it 
rij^lit,  and  it  was  held  thai  the  use  of  indecent  lan<;ua{;e 
concerning;  .lesus  Christ  was  l)lasj»heiny  ami  ])nnishal)lo  by 
the  common  law.    People  v  Rnfjgles,  8  John.  ( .\.  Y. )  2I>0. 

^^'rit in<;  against  Diristianity  by  discourses  on  the  miracles 
of  (Mir  Saviour.     Hex  v  Woolston,  2  Str.  (Kni;. )  S;U. 

Historical  Sketch,  l'^>r  a  histoi-y  of  the  crime  of  blasjtiiemy 
see  Slate  v  Chandler.  2  Ilarr.  (hel.)  553. 


CAMPBELLITES 

Congregation,  powers,  51. 
Majority,  control  of  property,  52. 

Congregation,  Powers.  The  several  church  organizalions 
formed  by  the  followers  of  Alexander  Campbell — and  they 
are  numerous — at  tlie  time  of  their  organization  were,  and 
now  are,  purely  congregational  in  their  government;  that 
is,  there  is  no  general  conference,  synod,  presbytery,  or  other 
similar  body  which  exercises  supervision  over  said  church 
congregations,  but  each  organization  in  matters  of  practice, 
in  church  government  and  otherwise,  is  sovereign,  and  the 
congregations  so  organized  have  no  creed  except  the  Bible, 
the  view  of  the  followers  of  the  said  Alexander  Campbell 
being  that  where  the  Bible  speaks  of  the  congregation  its 
several  mend)ers  are  authorized  to  speak,  but  where  it  is 
silent,  the  congregation  and  the  mend)ers  thereof  .should 
also  remain  silent.  In  1849  there  sprang  up  among  the  mem- 
bers of  said  religious  sect  different  views  upon  subjects  of 
practice  to  be  adopted  by  the  congregations  with  reference 
to  matters  upon  which  the  Bible  was  silent,  one  view  being 
that  in  matters  u])on  which  the  Bible  is  silent  such  silence 
should  be  construed  as  a  positive  ])rohil)ition  ;  the  other  view 
being  that  if  the  Bible  is  silent  uj»on  a  given  subject  pertain- 
ing to  church  government,  then  the  congregation  may  form- 
ulate a  rule  in  that  particular  for  the  government  of  the 
congregation.  The  division  along  the  lines  above  suggeste<l 
seems  to  have  grown  as  the  church  nuMubershij)  increased, 
and  in  1880  there  was  a  wide  «litl'erence  of  view  between 
the  several  congregations,  an<l  between  the  members  of  the 
same  congregation,  rchitive  to  nniny  ]>ractices  in  the  church, 
such  as  to  the  piopriety  of  having  instrumental  music  in 
the  church  during  church  services;  the  employment  by  the 
congregation  of  ministers  of  the  gosi)el  for  a  fixed  time  and 

51 


52  TUE  (MVJL  LAW  AM)  Tlli:  CiilKCll 

for  a  fixod  salary;  the  orf^anizatioii  of  missionary  sorietieH 
and  Sunday  schools  as  scitarate  organizations  outside  the 
regular  church  congregations;  the  raising  of  funds  for  the 
support  of  the  gospel  by  holding  church  fairs  and  festivals, 
and  perhaj)s  in  otiier  matters  of  a  similar  character.  The 
division  resulted  in  the  formation  of  two  parties  in  the 
church  :  those  entertaining  the  liberal  views  were  called 
Progressives,  and  those  entertaining  the  more  (Conservative 
view  were  called  Antis.  The  liberal  [)arty  had  usually  taken 
the  name  of  the  (Christian  Church,  while  the  conservative 
party  used  the  name  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  Christian 
Church  of  Sand  Creek  v  Church  of  Christ,  Sand  Creek,  21U 
111.  50:{. 

Majority,  Control  of  Property.  There  was  a  division  in  this 
society,  one  party  taking  the  name  of  Christian  Church,  and 
the  other  party  taking  the  name  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 
The  two  parties  met  as  one  congregation  prior  to  1!)04,  and 
communed  together  as  one  congregation  in  apparent  har- 
mony. There  were,  however,  some  differences  of  opinion 
among  members  of  the  congregation  with  reference  to  the 
powers  exercised  by  the  officers  of  the  church,  and  especially 
in  1903,  whether  the  church  building  should  be  used  for  a 
singing  school.  The  ollicers  refu.sed  to  permit  the  building 
to  be  used  for  that  purpose.  It  was  then  discovered  that 
the  incorporation  of  the  society  was  defective  by  reason  of 
failure  to  comply  with  certain  legal  requirements.  Each 
party  then  hastened  to  form  a  corporation.  The  minority 
was  incorporated  as  the  Christian  Church,  and  the  majority 
as  the  Church  of  Christ.  The  majority  were  in  possession 
of  the  property,  and  refused  its  use  to  the  minority'.  The 
question  in  this  case  involved  the  right  of  possession  of  the 
property.  It  was  held  that  it  was  not  within  the  i)rovince 
of  the  court  to  "pronounce  judgment  upon  the  doctrines 
taught  by  Alexander  Campbell,  and  believed  and  practiced 
by  his  followers,  or  to  determine  which  faction  of  the  Sand 
Creek  Congregation,  in  their  practices  in  their  church  con- 
gregation, from  an  ecclesiastical  standpoint  is  correct,  as  llie 


CAMPBELLITES  53 

courts  have  uo  couceru  with  the  question  whether  a  religious 
coiigregatiou  is  progressive  or  couservative." 

The  original  deed  of  the  property  was  to  the  trustees  of 
the  Christian  Church,  but  a  large  part  of  the  business  of  the 
church  was  done  under  the  name  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  It 
appeared  that  the  Sand  Creek  Congregation,  from  the  incep- 
tion of  its  organization  to  the  time  of  the  division  in  1904, 
as  a  congregation,  was  opposed  to  any  innovations  in  the 
practices  of  the  church ;  that  is,  the  congregation  only  acted 
in  matters  of  practice  in  accordance  with  what  tliey  believed 
to  be  the  i)ositive  commands  of  God  as  found  in  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  and  the  party  known  as  the  Church  of 
Christ  have  since  1004  maintained  that  position,  and  appear 
to  have  maintained  from  the  beginning,  and  now  maintain, 
the  tenets  and  doctrines  which  w^ere  taught  in  the  Sand 
Creek  Congregation  at  its  organization,  and  which  have  been 
maintained  and  taught  in  that  congregation  all  through  its 
history.  The  party  known  as  the  Christian  Church  had, 
since  their  separation,  tauglit  and  practiced  what  were 
known  and  characterized  as  the  innovations.  The  court  held 
that  the  majority  were  the  successors  to  the  original  founders 
of  the  congregation,  and  as  such  were  owners  of  the  property 
and  entitled  to  its  possession.  The  minority,  having  seceded 
from  the  congregation,  and  effected  a  new  organization, 
teaching  and  practicing  the  innovations  objected  to  by  the 
majority,  must  be  deemed  to  have  abandoned  the  property. 
It  was  further  held  that  the  societies  organized  by  the  fol- 
lowers of  Alexander  Campbell  were  congregational  and  inde- 
jtendent,  and,  therefore,  that  the  Sand  Creek  congregation 
was  not  bound  by  the  action  of  other  congregations  in  adopt- 
ing innovations  in  faith  and  i)ractice;  also  that  the  majority 
party  having  been  incorporated  under  the  name  of  the  Churdi 
of  Christ,  immediately  became  entitled  to  the  property  of  the 
Sand  Creek  church,  and  their  right  was  not  affected  by  the 
incorporation  of  the  minority  party  under  tbe  name  of  the 
Christian  Church.  Christian  Churdi  of  Sand  Creek  v  Church 
of  Christ,  Sand  Creek,  210  111.  50:5. 


CAMP  MEETINGS 

By-laws,  54. 
Ea.scmrnt,  54. 
MiiniciiKil  ordinance,  54. 
Ocean  Grove  Association,  54. 
Sunday  admission  fee,  55. 
Taxation  of  property,  55. 
Temperance,  56. 
Title  to  property,  56. 
Traffic,  limitation,  56. 

By-Laws.  A  camp  meeting  association  was  authorized  to 
make  by-laws  aiul  to  i)iircliase,  hold,  and  convey  real  prop- 
erty for  its  purposes.  In  Winnepesaukee  v  Gordon,  07  N.  H. 
98,  it  was  held  that  property  conveyed  by  the  association 
subject  to  rules  and  regulations  which  mioht  afterward  be 
adojtted  by  it  was  bound  by  reasonable  alterations  or  amend- 
ments or  by  additional  rules  and  regulations  subsequently 
ado])ted  by  the  association. 

Easement.  Testator  by  his  will  gave  the  use  of  20  acres 
of  land  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  for  camp  meeting 
purposes.  It  was  held  that  the  title  to  the  land  passed  to 
the  testator's  heirs  subject  to  a  perpetual  easement  to  be 
enjoyed  by  the  church  for  camp  meeting.  8axton  v  Mitchell, 
7ST*a.  St.  4  70. 

Municipal  Ordinance.  When  a  camp  meeting  is  located 
within  the  limits  of  a  city  or  village  it  is  subject  to  the  ordi- 
nances of  such  city  or  village,  and  a  person  duly  licensed  by 
siu-h  village  to  sell  articles  of  food  or  drink  within  the  limits 
of  the  corporation  is  not  required  to  take  out  a  permit  from 
the  managers  of  such  meetings  to  sell  such  articles.  Ex 
Parte  :M(Xair,  i:!  Neb.  11)."'). 

Ocean  Grove  Association.  The  Ocean  Grove  Camp  Meeting 
Association  of  Ocean  Grove.  New  Jersey,  was  incorporated 
in   1S7()  by  an  act  of  the  Legislature  of  that   State.     Its 

54 


CAMr  MKET]N(iS  55 

jj;ioiiii(Is  are  contiguous  to  the  city  of  Asbury  Park.  lu  ISiJG 
tiie  Isaw  Jersey  Li^^islature  passed  an  a<-t  wliicli,  auiong 
other  things,  prohibited  tlie  granting  of  a  new  license  to  sell 
intoxicating  liquors  within  one  mile  in  any  direction  from 
the  outside  limits  or  boundaries  of  the  lands  of  the  camp 
meeting  association.  In  lUOG  the  excise  commissioners  of 
Asbury  Park  granted  a  hotel  license,  the  business  of  which 
was  to  be  carried  on  within  one  mile  from  the  limits  of  the 
Ocean  Grove  Camp  Meeting  Orounds.  The  license  was  held 
invalid  under  the  act  of  ISIJCJ,  and  that  act  was  held  not 
unconstitutional  or  local  on  the  ground  that  it  was  special 
legislation.  Sexton  v  B'd.  Excise  Coni'rs.,  Asbury  Park, 
70  N.  J.  L.  102. 

Sunday  Admission  Fee.  A  compulsory  admission  fee  to  a 
cam})  meeting  on  Sunday  was  held  to  constitute  worldly 
business  under  the  statute  of  Pennsj'lvania.  Commonwealth 
V  Weidner,  4  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  437. 

Taxation  of  Property.  In  New  Hamj)shire  the  real  and  per- 
sonal estate  of  a  camp  meeting  association  was  exempted 
from  taxation  by  the  act  of  1874,  but  this  exemption  was 
held  not  to  apply  to  a  stock  of  groceries  and  food  supplies 
owned  by  the  association  and  exposed  for  sale  on  the  asso- 
ciation ground.  Alton  Bay  Camp  Meeting  Association  v 
Alton,  G9N.H.  311. 

I'art  of  camp  meeting  grounds  were  used  for  stabling 
horses  for  hire,  and  let  for  victualing  pur]>oses,  and  for  the 
use  of  cottagers.  In  Foxcroft  v  Piscataquis  Valley  Camp 
Meeting  Association,  S(i  Me.  78,  it  was  held  that  the  part  so 
used  was  liable  to  taxation. 

Sixteen  acres  of  land  used  for  religious  camp  meetings, 
owned  by  a  corjioi-ation  organized  under  the  statute  for  the 
formation  of  corporations  not  for  pecuniary  i)rotit,  and  not 
un<ler  that  relating  to  religious  societies,  is  not  exempt  from 
taxation  under  the  statute  (revised  statutes,  cha]>.  120,  sec. 
2)  which  exem])ts  certain  church  i)ro])erty.  Peoi)le  ex  rel 
Breymeyer  v  Watseka  Camp  Meeting  Association,  1(10  111. 
57G. 


56         Tin:  ('i\  iL  LAW  AM)  Tni:  ciinicii 

Temperance.  II  \s;is  licid  in  Stnlc  v  N(»i-i'is,  ,")!»  N.  H.  ."»:',(;. 
tliiil  wlicllicr  ;i  State  teiiiperjiiicc  caini)  mccliii;^  \\;is  ;i  jiljicc 
of  r('li<;i()us  worsliip  under  tlie  New  llaiiipsliii-c  sl;ilnt(t  was 
a  (luestioii  of  lacf  lor  llic  jnrv.  It  appeared  Ili;it  the  exer- 
cises were  opened  each  sessi.m  by  reading  the  Sniptures 
and  ])rayer.  That  there  were  lectures,  addi-esses  on  temper- 
ance, with  sin<;inj^  of  tenijtei'ance  and  religious  hymns.  Tlie 
(piestion  arose  on  a  complaint  apiinst  a  person  for  s(dlin^ 
beer,  cigars,  and  other  goods  within  two  miles  of  the  place 
of  meetinji'. 

Title  to  Property.  Where  each  of  two  parties  claimed  to 
be  entitled  to  the  possession  of  camj)  meetinj^  ]»roperty,  and 
to  hold  an<l  use  it  for  the  benetit  of  the  Methodist  Church  of 
Warren  Connty,  one  party  claiming  under  an  appointment 
by  a  Quarterly  Conference  of  the  church,  and  the  other 
under  a  grant  from  the  superior  court,  it  was  held  that  the 
matter  could  not  be  determined  on  the  application  for  an 
injunction,  but  that  the  })arties  would  be  left  to  their  i-emedy 
by  <pio  warranto.    Harris  v  Founds,  ()4  (ia.  121. 

Traffic,  Limitation.  Sec.  5J)  of  the  Illinois  Criminal  Code, 
nuiking  it  a  ])enal  offense  for  any  one.  without  ]»erinission  of 
those  in  charge  of  a  camj)  meeting,  to  establish  any  tent, 
booth,  or  ])lace  for  vending  provisions  or  refreshments 
within  one  nnle  of  such  meeting,  with  a  proviso  that  any  one 
who  has  his  regular  place  of  business  within  such  limits 
shall  not  be  required  to  suspend  his  business,  is  not  invalid, 
as  being  in  restraint  of  trade,  or  creating  a  monopoly,  or 
making  discrimination.s,  but  is  a  valid  law  tending  to 
prevent  disturbance  and  disorderly  conduct.  The  act  is 
a  mere  police  regulation,  and  one  within  the  legislative 
I)ower. 

The  proviso  in  the  act  that  whoever  has  his  regular  place 
of  business  within  such  limits  is  not  hereby  required  to 
suspend  his  business,  was  not  intended  to  be  limited  to  those 
who  might  have  a  busitiess  within  the  prescribed  limits  at 
the  tiuje  the  act  was  jiassed  but  applies  equally  to  all  wlu) 
may,  in  good  faith,  establish  a  place  of  business  therein  at 


CAMI»  MEKTINCJS  57 

any  time  when  no  camp  meeting  is  in  piogiess  or  being  car- 
ried on. 

The  court  does  not  hold  that  a  person  on  the  eve  of  a 
meeting  to  be  held  will  have  the  right  to  establish  a  booth  for 
the  sale  of  provisions  for  a  short  period,  or  during  a  ses- 
sion of  a  meeting,  and  claim  protection  under  the  proviso. 
To  avail  of  the  law  he  must  have  established  a  regular  per- 
manent business.  When  that  has  been  done  he  will  not  be 
required  to  suspend  during  the  time  a  meeting  is  held.  The 
act  does  not  confer  i)ower  on  those  in  charge  of  camp  meet- 
ings to  license  the  sale  of  provisions  and  refreshments.  The 
fact  that  it  confers  on  such  authorities  the  right  to  consent 
or  refuse  consent  cannot  be  held  to  authorize  them  to 
license.    Meyers  v  Baker,  120  Til.  507. 

The  rennsjlvania  act  of  1822  prohibited  the  sale  of  ar- 
ticles of  traffic,  s])irituous  liquors,  wine,  porter,  beer,  cider, 
or  any  other  fermented,  mixed  or  strong  drinks  within  three 
miles  of  a  camp  meeting.  It  was  held  that  the  prohibition 
was  not  directed  against  all  articles  of  traffic,  but  only 
against  liquors  described  in  the  statute,  and  therefore  that 
a  seizure  and  the  sale  of  other  articles  of  traffic  kept  by  a 
huckster  within  the  prohibited  distance  of  a  camp  meeting 
was  illegal.    Kramer  v  Marks,  (U  l*a.  St.  151. 

In  Commonwealth  v  Bearse,  182  Mass.  542,  the  court  sus- 
tained as  constitutional  the  Massachusetts  act  of  18G7,  chap. 
50,  which  prohibited  establishing  and  maintaining  a  build- 
ing for  vending  provisions  and  refreshments  within  one 
mile  of  the  i)lace  of  holding  a  camp  meeting  for  religious 
jturposes  during  the  time  the  meeting  was  held,  without  the 
consent  of  the  authorities  or  persons  in  charge  of  such 
meeting. 

See  the  article  on  spiritualists  for  a  special  case  under  a 
Massachusetts  statute. 


cemetp:ry 

Access  to  lot,  5S. 

Advorse  possession,  .58. 

Churchyard,  59. 

Disinterment,  State  control,  59. 

Ec(;lesiastical  jurisdiction,  00. 

l''ree  burial  ground,  00. 

Legislatiu-e,  i)o\ver  to  direct  sale,  GO. 

Lot  owner's  right,  01. 

Mechanic's  lien,  03. 

Municipal  ordinance,  03. 

Park,  taking  for,  04. 

Roman  Catholic,  reUgious  test,  04. 

Sale,  appUcation  of  proceeds,  reinterment,  04. 

Suicide,  05. 

Title,  lease  or  fee,  05. 

Title  of  grantee  of  lot,  05. 

Tomb,  English  rule,  05. 

Tomb  owner's  right,  05. 

Tombstone,  title,  00. 

Access  to  Lot.  The  purchaser  of  a  lot  in  a  church  cemetery 
acquires  thereby  a  right  of  access  to  the  lot,  and  the  chnrcli 
authorities  cannot  obstruct  an  ayeniie  as  laid  down  on  the 
cemetery  map,  wiiich  leads  to  the  lot  or  is  conyenient  for 
the  purpose  of  access  thereto.  Sudi  an  ayenue  becomes  a 
servitude,  which  cannot  be  disturbed.  Burke  v  Wall,  2!l 
La.  Ann.  ^8. 

Adverse  Possession.  In  is:!:i  land  was  conveyed  to  the 
trustees  of  this  society  intended  for  a  burial  ground,  but  the 
]>ur])ose  was  not  stated  in  the  deed.  "NVliile  the  deed  was 
<lefective  in  not  containinj;-  a  statement  of  its  pnrj>ose,  it  was 
held  that  uninterrupted  occupancy  of  it  for  twenty  years 
created  a  title  by  adverse  possession.  At  the  time  of  the 
action,  tlie  pro]>erty  had,  in  fact,  been  occupied  sixty  years. 

In  1840  the  trtistees  of  the  St.  .Tohn's  Society  conveyed  the 

5S 


CIOMIOTintY  5!) 

land  to  the  Aiclibishop  of  Baltimore.  Tlie  Maryland  act 
of  lS'i'2  authorize*!  the  trustees  of  the  Kouuui  Catholic 
Church  to  convey  it  to  the  archbishop.  The  conveyance  in 
1840,  based  on  this  statute,  was  held" to  be  a  ratilication  of 
the  original  conveyance  to  the  trustees.  A  subsequent  con- 
veyance by  the  archbishop  was  held  to  transfer  a  good  title 
to  tlie  burial  lot.    Gump  v  Sibley,  7!)  Md.  1(15. 

Churchyard.  The  right  of  burial  when  confined  to  a 
churchyard,  as  distinguished  from  a  separate  independent 
cemeter}^,  ulthougli  conveyed  wiUi  the  common  formrda 
"heirs  and  assigns  forever,"  must  stand  upon  the  same  foot- 
ing as  the  right  of  i)ublic  vv^orship  in  a  j)articular  pew  of  the 
consecrated  edifice.  It  is  an  easement  in.  and  not  a  title  to, 
the  freehold,  and  must  be  understood  as  granted  and  taken, 
subject  (with  compensation,  of  course)  to  such  changes  as 
the  altered  circumstances  of  the  congregation  or  the  neigh- 
borhood may  render  necessary.  The  selection  of  a  i)la('e 
of  burial  in  the  ground  forming  the  site  of  a  chnrch  is 
always  made  with  reference  to  its  religious  associations, 
and  with  an  eye  to  their  continuance. 

The  sale  of  a  chnrch  vault  gives  a  mere  right  of  interment 
in  the  i)articular  ])lot  of  ground,  so  long  as  that  and  the 
contiguous  ground  continues  to  be  occujjiod  as  a  churchyard. 
Kichards  v  The  Northwest  Protestant  Dutch  (Miurch,  :>2 
Barb.  (N.  Y.  i  42.  See  also  Schoonmaker  v  the  Keformed 
Church  of  Kingston,  5  How.  1*.  (X.  Y.  i  2(55;  same  rule  as  to 
town  cemeteries,  l*age  v  Symmonds,  (j.)  N.  H.  17;  see  also 
Windt  V.  (lerman  Beformed  Church,  4  Sandf.  Ch.  Kep. 
(N.  Y.)  502. 

Disinterment,  State  Control.  An  interment  having  been 
ma<le  in  the  dcfenchmt's  cemetery  at  Cypress  Hills,  friends 
of  the  decease<l  proposed  to  disinter  the  remains  for  burial  in 
another  cenieter3\  The  application  was  refused  by  the 
society  ujton  tlie  ground  that  such  disinterment  was  forbid- 
den by  the  dewish  law.  The  ([ueslion  of  disintcii-ing  remains 
in  the  Jewish  cemetery  must,  in  the  altseuce  oT  a  itositixc 
rule  of  the  societv,  be  detcrniincd  Ii\-  ihc  cdiiri.     In  iliis  (-.•isc 


m         TiiK  cniL  LAW  AM)  TJii:  cmiicii 

.1  jn(l<;nioiit  w;is  rondcrcd  directing  tin;  i-(Mim)v;i1  of  llu;  nv 
iiKiins.  ColuMi  V  (^mgrcgntion  Sliearith  Israel,  111  A\)]).  Div. 
( N.  Y. )  11 7. 

Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction.  The  interment  of  the  (lead  is 
a  mailer  which,  wilhin  limits,  may  be  with  entire  jiropriety 
brought  within  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.  Such  ecclesias- 
tical jurisdiction  cannot  restrict  the  ])olice  j)ower  of  the 
State,  but  it  may  jirescribe  rules  for  the  government  of  a 
cemetery,  where  those  in  interest  place  the  cemetery  under 
its  authority.  In  exei-cising  jurisdiction  over  burial  places 
the  ecclesiastical  authorities  do  not,  unless  they  transcend 
their  jurisdiction,  usurp  police  powers,  nor  determine  ques- 
tions alTecting  ]»roi»erty  rights.  A  religious  organization  in 
assuming  control  of  a  cemetery  does  not  assmne  jurisdiction 
of  secular  matters,  and,  therefore,  does  not  wander  outside 
of  its  domain  into  the  domain  of  the  civil  law.  It  does  not 
exceed  its  jurisdiction  in  assuming  to  establish  rules  for  the 
interment  of  the  dead,  unless  those  rules  contravene  some 
rule  or  principle  of  jurisprudence.  A  religious  denomina- 
tion may,  when  solicited  by  the  parties  in  interest,  assume 
jurisdiction  over  cemeteries  and  prescribe  rules  for  their 
government,  but  cannot  establish  any  rules  that  contravene 
any  principle  of  law.  After  such  rules  are  established  the 
persons  acquiring  the  use  of  burial  lots  or  the  right  of  burial 
therein  take  the  same,  subject  to  such  rules.  Dwenger  v 
Geary,  11.3  Tnd.  106. 

Free  Burial  Ground.  A  religious  society  purchased  land 
and  dedicated  it  for  the  purposes  of  a  free  burial  ground 
for  the  uses  of  the  church  under  its  discipline.  There  was 
no  formal  as.signment  of  burial  lots,  but  it  seems  to  have 
been  a  custom  for  families  to  appropriate  certain  lots  for 
their  own  use  for  burial  purposes.  The  trustees  had  no 
pow^er  to  restrict  or  control  the  burials  in  particular  parts 
of  the  cemetery.  Tt  was  in  every  sense  a  free  burial  ground. 
Antrim  v  Malsbury,  43  N.  J.  Eq.  2SS. 

Legislature,  Power  to  Direct  Sale.  The  owners  of  a  lot  in 
a  cemetery,  whatever  the  form  of  the  deed,  acquire  only  a 


CEMETERY  61 

right  of  Inu'iiil,  ami  the  Lej^i  slat  lire  has  power  to  prohibit 
further  iiiteriiieiits  and  authorize  the  sale  of  tlie  cemetery, 
provision  being  made  for  the  removal  of  rejnains,  and  com- 
pensation to  lot  owners.  Went  v  Metliodist  Protestant 
Church,  SO  Hun  (N.  Y.)  200. 

Lot  Owner's  Right.  A  religious  society  purchased  land  for 
a  cemetery  and  issued  to  lot-holders  certificates  authoi'izing 
the  use  of  the  lots  for  burial  purposes.  These  certilicatcs 
did  not  vest  any  title  in  the  lot-holders,  but  amounted  only 
to  a  license  to  make  interments  so  long  as  the  i)roperty  was 
used  for  burial  puri)oses.  On  a  sale  of  the  j)roi)erty  by  the 
society  under  legal  authority  the  lot-holders  had  a  right  to 
remove  the  remains  of  persons  interred  in  tlieir  lots,  and 
also  to  remove  any  monuments  and  other  fixtures.  J 'art- 
ridge  V  First  Independent  Church,  39  Md.  o:57. 

In  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  City  of  New 
York,  7  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  470,  it  was  held  that  a  deed  of  a 
burial  lot  in  a  cemetery  owned  by  the  corporation  conveyed 
only  the  right  of  burial,  and  could  not  prevent  a  sale  of  the 
property,  i)rovision  being  made  for  the  removal  of  remains 
disinterred. 

Richards  v  Northwest  I'rotestant  Dutch  Church,  32  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  43,  involved  the  right  of  burial  in  a  churcliyard  used 
in  connection  with  a  church  edifice.  It  was  held  that  a 
lot-owner  acquired  merely  the  right  of  interment,  which 
could  not  prevent  the  sale  of  the  pro})erty  by  the  cori)oration, 
and  removing  the  remains  to  another  cemetery,  under  such 
conditions  as  the  court  might  direct. 

When  a  cemetery  association  or  churcli  sells  particular 
lots  in  a  cemetery  the  purchaser  becomes  the  owner  of  the 
soil,  and  manifestly  his  riglit  to  its  possession  i»rotects 
interments  made  b}'  him  from  disturbance.  It  is  also  true, 
as  a  general  proposition,  that  where  ground  has  been  dedi- 
cated to  the  public  for  use  as  a  cemetery,  tl»e  owner  cannot 
afterward  resume  possession,  or  remove  the  bodies  interred 
therein,  although  he  has  received  no  consideration  Cor  its 
use,  and  the  interments  were  made  merely  by  his  consent. 


fi2  TFIK  CrVIL  LAW  AND  Till:  (III   IJCII 

Ex  Tiirte  McC^'all,  Little  v   rrcshylcriMii   Cluircli,   I'lorciicp, 
08  S.  C.  48!). 

One  who  buys  a  privilege  of  hnrviii;;  liis  (lend  kinsincii  or 
friends  in  a  cemetery  a(«iuires  no  general  right  of  jtroperty. 
He  acquires  only  the  right  to  bury  the  dead,  for  he  may  not 
use  the  ground  for  any  other  puri)Ose  than  such  as  is  con- 
nected with  the  right  of  se])ulture.  Beyond  this  his  title 
does  not  extend.  He  does  not  acipiire,  in  the  strict  sense, 
an  ownership  of  the  ground;  all  that  he  does  acquire  is  a 
right  to  use  the  ground  as  a  burial  place.  Dwenger  v 
Geary,  1 13  Ind.  100. 

Where  the  title  to  the  land  used  by  a  religious  corpora- 
tion for  cemetery  purposes  remains  in  the  corjKU'ation,  and 
no  deed  is  made  of  any  lot  for  the  purpose  of  interments,  the 
sepulture  of  friends  or  relatives  in  such  burning  ground 
confers  no  title  or  right  ui)on  the  survivors.  If  the  survivors 
have  any  interest  in  the  cemetery,  or  control  over  its  use 
and  dis])osal,  it  can  only  be  as  corporators  in  the  society 
owning  the  ground.  The  only  protection  afforded  to  the 
remains  of  the  dead  interred  in  a  cemetery  of  this  descrip- 
tion is  by  the  public  laws  prohibiting  their  removal,  except 
on  ])rescribed  terms,  and  in  a  still  stronger  public  opinion. 
Where  vaults  or  burying  lots  have  been  conveyed  by  reli- 
gious corporations  rights  of  property  are  conferred  upon  the 
purchasers.  The  payment  of  fees  and  charges  to  the  cor- 
poration or  its  oflHcers,  upon  interments,  gives  no  title  to  the 
land  occui)ied  by  the  body  interred.  It  confers  the  privilege 
of  sepulture  for  such  body  in  the  mode  used  and  permitted 
by  the  corporation ;  and  the  right  to  have  the  same  remain 
undisturbed  so  long  as  the  cemetery  shall  continue  to  be 
used  as  such,  and  so  long  also,  if  its  use  continues,  as  may 
be  required  for  the  entire  decomposition  of  remains;  and 
also  the  right,  in  case  the  cemetery  shall  be  sold  for  secular 
purposes,  to  have  such  remains  removed  and  proi>erly  depos- 
ited in  a  new  place  of  sepulture.  Windt  v  German  Reformed 
Church,  4  Sandf.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  502. 
The  certificate  to  purchasers  of  lots  in  the  burying  ground 


CEMKTIOKV  (\:i 

of  the  church  was  "to  have  and  to  liold  the  sai<l  lots  for  the 
use  aud  ]>uri)ose,  and  subject  to  the  conditions  and  regula- 
tions mentioned  in  the  deed  of  trust  to  the  trustees  of  said 
church."  This  was  not  evidence  of  a  grant  of  any  interest  in 
the  soil.  The  certificate  was  the  grant  of  a  license  or  priv- 
ilege to  make  interments  in  the  lots  described  exclusive  of 
others,  so  long  as  the  ground  should  remain  the  l)nrying 
ground  of  the  church.  Whenever,  by  lawful  authority,  the 
ground  should  cease  to  be  a  burying  ground,  the  lot-owner's 
right  and  pi-operty  ceastMl.  When  it  became  necessary  to 
vacate  the  ground  for  burial,  all  the  lot-owner  could  claim, 
was  to  have  notice  and  an  opportunity  of  removing  the 
bodies  and  monuments;  on  his  failure  to  do  so  thej'  could  be 
removed  bj'^  others.    Kiucaid's  appeal,  00  Pa.  8t.  120. 

A  deed  of  a  burial  lot  is  a  grant  of  the  use  of  the  lot  as  a 
place  of  burial  in  subordination  to  the  right  of  the  corpora- 
tion in  the  soil  or  freehold,  and  the  trustees  have  a  right, 
upon  complying  with  the  provisions  of  the  statute,  to  sell 
the  i)roperty  and  remove  the  remains  of  the  dead,  if  the  court 
shall  deem  it  proper.  Re  Reformed  I'resbj  terian  Church,  7 
How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  47G. 

Mechanic's  Lien.  In  Beam  v  First  Methodist  Ejjiscopal 
Church,  Lancaster,  Pa.,  o  Pa.  L.  J.  Rej).  ol;>,  it  was  held  that 
a  mechanic's  lien  filed  against  a  church  edifice  could  not  be 
enforced  against  the  graveyard  attached  to  the  church  and 
used  by  the  society. 

Municipal  Ordinance.  The  city  of  New  Yoi-k  under  the  act 
of  1S1:{  (!'  K.  L.  44."),  s.  2(17)  had  i)ower  to  enact  the  by-law 
of  182;)  ])rohibiting  intermenls  in  a  certain  ])art  of  the  city 
under  prescribed  ])enalties.  hiUMiiicuts  were  afterward 
made  in  the  )»roscribed  disti-ici  (indnding  Trinity  Church) 
1)3'  jiersons  having  a  right  of  inlciiiicnl  inuk-r  gi-ants  of 
land  for  cemetery  i>urj)oses.  The  l»y  hiw  was  valid  as  to 
these  intei-ments,  and  the  act  under  which  it  was  ])assed  was 
not  void  as  impairing  the  obligation  of  a  contract.  The 
by-law  was  valid  as  a  police  regulation.  Coates  v  New  York. 
7  Cow.  (N.  Y.i  585. 


04  TIN':  CINIL   LAW   AM)  'I'lli:  ('\\\\H'\l 

Park,  Taking  for.  In  M;itlcr  of  JJojird  of  Sire*'!  ()|)«Mniig, 
]Xi  N.  Y.  :{LM),  il  \v;.s  held  that  a  (ciiM'U'ry  owned  by  Trin- 
ity Chuicli,  but  in  ^\lli(•h  interniciils  liad  been  discontinued 
since  1S.'>!>,  nii^lit  be  taken  by  cily  antlioi-ilies  for  i)ark  pur- 
I)oses.     (\)ndenmali<»n   proceed inj^s  were  sustained. 

Roman  Catholic,  Religious  Test.  A  cemetery  established  on 
land  (onveyed  to  tlie  ])isliop  to  be  used  as  a  cenieten,'  for 
the  burial  of  Catholics,  and  which  had  been  consecrated  for 
that  i)urpose  by  the  church  authorities,  could  not  be  used 
as  a  ])lace  of  burial  of  a  ])erson  who  was  not  a  Catholic,  and 
who,  accordin<>;  to  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  church, 
was  not  entitled  to  burial  in  such  cemetery.  Dwenger  v 
Geary,  113  Ind.  100. 

A  person  received  from  the  authorities  in  control  of  a 
Catholic  cemetery  a  certificate  or  paper  acknowledging  the 
receipt  of  a  specified  sum.  being  the  amount  of  i)urchase 
money  of  a  plot  of  ground,  describing  it.  No  deed  was  given, 
and  it  w^as  held  that  no  title  or  interest  passed  by  virtue  of 
the  receipt.  The  receipt  did  not  amount  to  a  contract  of 
sale.  Under  the  rules  of  the  church,  the  burial  of  uon- 
Catholics  or  Freemasons  in  the  cemetery  was  forbidden.  The 
cemetery  was  consecrated  ground.  An  ajjplicant  for  permis- 
sion to  bury  in  such  cemetery  is  bound  by  the  rules  and 
regulations  of  the  church,  and  is  presumed  to  make  his 
application  with  reference  thereto.  The  person  who  paid 
the  money  and  took  the  receipt  was  a  Freemason,  and  upon 
his  decease  the  cemetery  authorities  refused  to  permit  him 
to  be  buried  in  the  lot.  It  was  held  that  the  cemetery  author- 
ities would  not  be  compelled  by  mandamus  to  open  the  grave 
and  permit  the  burial.  People  ex  rel  Coppers  v  Trustees,  St. 
Patrick's  Cathedral,  N.  Y.,  21  Hun.  (N.  Y.)  184. 

Sale,  Application  of  Proceeds,  Reinterment.  The  congrega- 
tion acquired  land  in  the  city  of  Reading,  which  was  used 
as  a  burying  ground,  in  which  the  mend)ers,  by  virtue  of 
their  membership,  had  the  right  to  and  did  bury  their  dead. 
An  act  passed  in  1809  authorized  the  removal  and  reinter- 
ment of  the  bodies,  the  sale  of  the  property,  and  after  pay- 


CEMETERY  65 

iiij;  certain  expenses,  the  proceeds  were  to  be  devoted  to  the 
erection  of  a  new  church  edifice.  The  act  was  declared  valid 
and  constitutional.  Where  real  estate  has  been  dedicated 
in  the  hands  of  the  grantee  to  certain  purposes,  with  an 
expressed  restriction  upon  alienation,  it  is  witlnn  the  power 
of  the  Legislature  to  authorize  a  conversion  of  the  realty 
into  money,  and  an  ajiplication  of  the  latter  to  the  original 
purposes  of  the  grant.  Ritter  v  Bausman,  2  Woodw.  Dec. 
(Pa.)  248. 

Suicide.    See  Roman  Catholic  Church,  subtitle  Cemeteries. 

Title,  Lease  or  Fee.  AVhere  a  religious  corporation  has  re- 
ceived a  fee  of  the  ground  on  which  the  church  stands  and 
of  the  gravej'ard  adjoining,  subject  only  to  the  keeping  the 
whole  to  i>ious  uses,  such  religious  corporation  can  grant 
any  length  of  lease,  or  a  fee  of  portion  of  the  ground  for 
vaults.  The  grantees  will  thereby  get  a  fee,  and  the  property 
cannot  be  sold  while  they  object  to  it.  Matter  of  Brick 
l»resby.  Ch.  ;i  Edw.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  155.  See  also  Brick  Presby- 
terian Church  V  New  York,  5  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  538  sustaining  a 
by-law  of  the  city  of  New  York  prohibiting  further  inter- 
ments in  the  cemetery  owned  by  this  church. 

Title  of  Grantee  of  Lot.  Where  vaults  or  burying  lots  have 
been  conveyed  by  religious  corporations,  rights  of  property 
are  conferred  upon  the  purchasers.  The  right  is  like  that 
to  any  other  real  estate,  and  is  as  perfect  without  sepulture 
as  it  is  where  the  grantee  has  used  it  for  that  purpose. 
Windt  v  (Jennan  Reformed  Church,  4  Sandf.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  502. 

Tomb,  English  Rule.  In  Bardin  v  Calcott,  1  Hagg.  Consist. 
Re.  (Eng. )  30!),  proceedings  were  sustained  against  a  per- 
son for  erecting  tombs  in  a  churchyard  without  authority. 
The  regulations  of  the  l*]stablished  Church  on  the  subject 
of  tombs  and  tombstones  are  here  fully  considered. 

Tomb  Owner's  Right.  Owners  of  tond)s  in  the  church  build 
ing  of  a  religious  society  have  no  title  in  the  land,  but  only 
an  interest  in  the  structures  and  in  their  jirojjcr  use,  and 
cannot  prevent  a  sale  of  the  land  and  building  by  the  society, 
nor  the  removal  of  the  icmains  from  the  tombs,  when  such 


<;(;         Till:  ("i\  ii.  law  am>  tiiI':  cm  kcii 

rciiiovMl  is  ill  other  rcspccls  ((MHliHtcfl  acroidin;^  to  i;i\v; 
as,  for  iiistiincc,  when  llu',  Ic^isljituic;  liiis  dircrtcMl  it  in  the 
exercise  of  its  powci-s  in  relation  to  imblic  health;  and  the 
tomb  of  one  who  devised  real  estate  to  the  society  in  trust 
for  keeping  said  tomb  in  <food  and  decent  repair  is  held  by 
the  same  usufructuary  lij^lit  and  subject  to  the  same  lia- 
bility to  removal.    Sohier  v  Trinity  Church,  \i)U  Mass.  1. 

Tombstone,  Title.  A  tondtstone  in  a  churchyard  belonj^s 
to  the  person  who  erected  it  or  to  the  heirs  of  the  deceased, 
in  whose  memory  it  is  set  up.  and  trespass  may  be  main- 
tained for  removing  or  injuring  it,  although  the  title  of  the 
land  is  iu  the  parson.  Spooner  v  Brewster,  10  Moores  Rep. 
(Eug.)  iU. 


CHAPEL 

Defined,  67. 

Defined.  Webster  and  Worcester  define  a  chapel  to  be  a 
place  of  worship  connected  with  a  church  or  with  some 
establislinieut,  public  or  private,  or  attached  to  a  churcli, 
or  subservient  to  it;  or,  second,  a  place  of  worshij)  not  con- 
nected with  a  church.  Bouvier,  in  his  Law  Dictionary,  says: 
"Chapels  are  places  of  worship.  They  may  be  either  private 
chapels,  such  as  are  built  and  maintained  by  a  private  per- 
son for  his  own  use  and  at  his  own  ex])ense;  or  free  chapels, 
exempt  from  all  or<linary  jurisdiction;  or  chajx'Is  of  ease, 
which  are  built  by  the  mother  church  for  the  ease  and  con- 
venience of  the  ])arishioners,  and  remain  under  its  juris- 
diction and  control.  There  is  no  question  that  a  chajtel  is  a 
place  of  worship."    Vanzant's  Instate,  (;  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  (JlT). 


67 


CHARITABLE  USE 

Defined,  68. 

Described,  69. 

History,  69. 

Benevolent  institutions,  69. 

Bread  and  education,  70. 

British  corporation,  how  affected  by  American  Revolution,  70. 

Chapel,  71. 

Churchyard,  repair  of  vault,  71. 

Common  law,  71. 

Diversion,  72. 

Donor's  opinions,  72. 

Foreign  country,  73. 

Georgia,  73. 

Hospitality  not  a  charitable  use,  73. 

Illinois,  74. 

Incorporated  society,  74. 

Indefinite,  74. 

Limitation,  cy  pres,  75. 

Maine,  76. 

Massachusetts,  76. 

Masses,  76. 

New  York,  77. 

Orphan  asylum,  77. 

Religious  reading,  77. 

Religious  services,  77. 

Religious  trust,  78. 

Roman  Catholic  clergyman,  80. 

Sermons  and  music,  80. 

Shakers,  80. 

South  Carolina,  SI. 

Sunday  school,  diversion,  81. 

Unincorporated  society,  81. 

Unitarian,  82. 

Vault  and  tomb,  repairs,  82. 

Defined.    A  publii'  or  charitable  trust  is  for  the  benefit  of 
an  uncertain  class  of  persons,  wlio  are  described  in  gen- 

68 


CHAKITABLK  USE  69 

eral  language,  and  partake  of  a  quasi  public  character,  as, 
for  example,  the  poor  of  a  certain  district  in  trust  of  a 
benevolent  nature,  or  the  children  of  a  certain  town  in  trust 
for  educational  purposes.  It  is  also  a  distinctive  feature  of 
a  charitable  trust  that  it  may  be  unlimited  in  its  duration, 
and  is  not  subject  to  nor  controlled  by  the  statutes  which 
])rohibit  perpetuities.  A  becpiest  was  sustained,  the  semi- 
nary being  sim])ly  an  instrumentalit}'  for  carrying  out  the 
far-reaching  aim  of  the  testator,  nameh%  the  promotion  of 
religion  by  spreading  abroad  a  knowledge  of  the  truths  of 
Christianity.  Field  v  Drew  Theological  Seminary,  41  Fed. 
371,  (Ct.  C.  D.  Del.) 

Charitable  uses,  like  all  other  uses,  comprise  a  trust  as 
well  as  a  use.  To  constitute  a  valid  use,  there  must  be  in 
all  cases,  first,  a  trustee  legally  competent  to  take  and  hold 
])roperty ;  and,  secondly,  the  use  for  some  purpose  clearly 
defined.  Grimes  Executors  v  Harmon  and  others,  35  Ind. 
IDS. 

Described.  In  law,  religious  and  charitable  uses  mean 
legal  acts  done  for  the  promotion  of  piety  among  men,  or  for 
the  purpose  of  relieving  their  sufferings,  enlightening  their 
ignorance,  and  bettering  their  condition  ;  such  acts  courts 
of  equity  ui)li()bl  and  ellectuate  accoi-ding  to  the  intention  of 
the  donor.    Miller  v  Porter,  53  Pa.  St.  292. 

History.  See  Jackson  v  Phillips,  14  Allen  (Mass.)  539,  for 
a  histor}'  and  exposition  of  the  statute  of  43  Elizabeth  c.  4 
showing  also  the  growth  and  expansion  of  the  system  in 
modern  times. 

Benevolent  Institutions.  Testator  devised  the  residue  of 
his  estate  "to  the  different  institutions  of  charity  and  benefi- 
cence, constituted  and  established  at  Philadelphia  for  the 
relief  of  the  unfortunate  and  of  those  wlio  live  under  the 
infliction  of  infirmities,  and  of  every  sort  of  privations,  with- 
out any  distinction  of  sect  or  religion,"  and  excepted  from 
these  different  institutions  of  charity  and  beneficence  all 
those  which  are  directed,  conducted,  and  administered  by 
ecclesiastics,  whatever  may  be  llie  sect  to  wliich  they  belong. 


70  TlllO  ('l\  II.   LAW    AM)  'I'lii:  (111  liCll 

Oniiltiii}^  rcrcrcnccs  to  ii()ii)'('li;;;i(>iis  societies,  if  w;is  lield 
that  societies  of  a  relij^ioiis  cliai-acter,  whose;  lieiielits  were 
exclusively  coiilincd  to  a  pafticiilai-  sect,  were  not  excluded, 
tlie  true  const luctiou  of  the  will  heiiij^  that  all  sliouhl  ]»ar- 
ticipate,  he  tlieir  sect  or  reli<i;ion  what  it  inij^ht.  Tlu;  nier»! 
fact  that  a  clergyman  is  on(;  of  the  managers  of  a  society 
does  not  exclude  such  society  from  the  benefits  of  the  will. 
He  Bleuon's  Estate,  tiri-htly  X.  l\  (  Ta.)  :;:5S. 

Bread  and  Education.  Testator  gave  to  two  churches 
|1,000,  the  interest  to  he  used  for  ten  years  in  sui)i>lying 
bread  to  the  i)oor  of  the  congregation  of  wliich  testator  was 
a  member.  He  also  gave  to  these  churches  ^.j,()(K),  the  inter- 
est to  be  used  for  the  education  of  young  students  in  the 
ministry  of  the  congregation  of  which  he  was  a  member 
to  be  expended  under  the  direction  of  tlie  vestry  of  these  two 
churches.  These  becjuests  were  sustained,  the  court  holding 
that  while  the  English  statute  of  charitable  uses  (4:]  Eliza- 
beth c.  4)  had  not  been  extended  to  Pennsylvania,  the  prin- 
ciples of  it  as  applied  by  chancery  in  England  obtained  in 
that  State  by  force  of  its  common  law.  Whitman  v  Lex, 
17  Serg.  andR.  (Pa.)  93. 

British  Corporation,  how  Affected  by  American  Revolution. 
The  capacity  of  jjrivate  individuals,  British  subjects,  or  of 
corporations,  created  by  the  Crown  in  this  countrv,  or  in 
Great  Britain,  to  hold  lands  or  other  property  in  this  coun- 
try, was  not  att'ected  by  the  Revolution. 

The  property  of  British  corporations  in  this  country  is 
protected  by  the  sixth  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  1783, 
in  the  same  nninner  as  those  of  native  i)ersons;  and  their 
title,  thus  protected,  is  confirmed  by  the  ninth  article  of  the 
Treaty  of  1704,  so  that  it  could  not  be  forfeited  by  an  inter- 
mediate legislative  act,  or  other  proceeding,  for  the  defect 
of  alienage. 

The  act  of  the  Legislature  of  Vermont  of  the  80th  of 
October,  1704,  granting  the  land  in  that  State  belonging  to 
the  Society  for  Propagating  the  (lospel  in  Foreigu  Parts  to 
the  respective  towns  in  which  the  lands  lie,  is  void,  and  con- 


CHARITABLE  USE  71 

vers  no  title  under  it.  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the 
Gospel  in  Foreign  I'arts  v  Town  of  New  Ilaven,  8  Wheat. 
(U.  S.)  404. 

Chapel.  Testatrix  authorized  her  executor  to  ])ay  a  speci- 
fied amount  for  the  erection  of  a  chai)el  to  l)e  built  and  con- 
trolled by  the  trustees  of  a  designated  (IuuhIu  and  to  be 
called  by  her  name.  The  bequest  was  sustained  as  a  valid 
charitable  use.    Vanzant's  Estate,  0  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  025. 

A  devise  of  the  "chapel  lot,  to  be  retained  and  used  when 
the  growth  of  Ihe  village  ]»()]>ulation  will  justily  the  building 
of  a  chuich  and  more  i»retentious  village  duipel,"  and  a  be- 
quest of  a  sum  of  money  for  the  purpose  ultimately  of  erect- 
ing upon  the  chapel  lot  a  cha])el  to  be  used  by  the  inhabit- 
ants of  the  village  for  religious  meetings  and  a  Sunday 
school,  are  good  public  charitable  gifts.  Bartlett,  Peti- 
tioner, ]0:i  Mass.  nOK. 

Churchyard,  Repair  of  Vault.  Testatrix  bequeathed  a  fund 
to  be  used  in  keeping  in  good  repair  and  condition  forever 
the  monument  of  her  mother  in  a  church;  also  the  vault  in 
which  she  was  interred,  and  an  ornamental  window,  wiiith 
she  directed  her  trustees  to  place  in  the  church  in  memory 
of  her  mother,  and  to  apply  any  surplus  of  such  dividends 
toward  keeping  in  repair  and  ornamenting  the  chancel 
of  said  church.  The  gift  for  the  repair  of  the  vault  was  held 
void,  for  the  reason  that  the  vault  was  not  within  the  church, 
but  was  in  the  churchyard.  The  gifts  for  the  memorial 
window  and  foi*  the  repair  of  the  monument  were  held  valid 
lor  the  reason  that  they  were  a  part  of  the  chui-ch  structure, 
lloare  v  Osborne,  L.  1\.  1  Eq.  (Eng. )  oS.'),  :{.")  L.  .1.  Cli.  :>4."). 

Common  Law.  Though  the  English  slatiile  ol'  cliaritable 
uses  (4^>  lOliz.  c.  4)  was  not  a(iopte<l  by  (he  colony  (»r  State 
of  Pennsylvania,  the  principles  of  the  conunon  law  relative 
to  snch  uses,  which  were  restored  in  England  by  thai  statute, 
were  adopted  as  well  as  the  ]»rincii»les  of  ecinity  in  (he  admin- 
istration of  suih  trusts.  The  following  were  held  (o  be  good 
charitable  uses:  an  annnal  subscription  to  (he  slock  of  a 
religious  society'  which  is  ajiplied   lo  (lie  piindng  and  dis- 


71'  'rill-:  ('(NIL   LAW   AM>  'I'lli:  ('[II   KMMI 

sciiiiiiiilioii  (>r  lK>«»ks  ;iM(!  n  lit  iii<;s  ;i|>|»ii)\»'(l  l»y  such  society; 
;i  jjill  <()  ;i  rclijiioiis  society  toi-  flu;  rclid'  of  the  poor  ineinberH 
thereof;  ji  <;ift  to  a  li-easni-er  of  a  society,  itrj^anized  for  the 
civili/alion  and  iiiipi-oveineiit  of  certain  Indian  tribes  for 
the  benefit  of  sucli  Indians;  a  ^ift  to  a  religious  society  for 
the  relief  of  the  i)oor  thereof  and  toward  enlarj^ing  and 
iini)i()vin<j  its  meeting  lionse;  a  gift  to  a  town  for  a  fire 
engine  and  liose;  and  a  devise  or  bequest  to  a  society  with 
whose  constitution  and  purposes  the  testator  is  familiar,  for 
the  ])urj)oses  of  such  society,  sudi  pur])oses  being  proper 
objects  of  diaritable  uses.  Magill  v  Brown,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
8,052,  U.  S.  Cir.  Ct.  I'a.  (Brightly  N.  I\  347). 

Diversion.  Courts  of  equity  will  exert  their  powers  to  pre- 
vent a  misuse  or  an  abuse  of  charitable  trusts,  and  especially 
trusts  of  a  religious  nature,  by  trustees  or  by  a  majority 
of  a  society  having  jjossession  of  the  trust  property,  but  in 
all  cases  the  trust  and  abuse  of  it  must  be  clearly  estab- 
lished in  accordance  with  the  rules  by  which  courts  are  gov- 
erned in  administering  justice.  If  the  alleged  abuse  is  a 
departure  from  the  tenets  of  the  founders  of  a  charity,  their 
particular  tenets  must  be  stated,  that  it  may  ai)i)ear  from 
what  tenets  the  alleged  wrongdoers  have  de])arted.  In  like 
manner,  it  must  be  stated  in  what  the  alleged  departure 
consists.  There  must  be  a  real  and  substantial  departure 
from  the  i)urposes  of  the  trust,  such  a  one  as  amounts  to  a 
])erversion  of  it,  to  authorize  the  exercise  of  equitable  juris- 
diction in  granting  relief.    Happy  v  Morton,  33  111.  398. 

Donor's  Opinions.  In  ecclesiastical  charities  the  religious 
opinions  of  tlie  founder  are  of  paramount  importance;  in 
educational  charities  his  religious  opinions  are  only  of 
value  where  some  directions  are  given  as  to  the  religious 
instruction  to  be  given  ;  but  in  eleemosynary  charities  the 
founder's  religious  opinions  are  wholly  to  be  disregarded. 
Attorney-General  v  Calvert,  23  Beav.  (Eng.)  258. 

In  construing  a  bequest  of  money  to  a  town  with  a  direc- 
tion that  the  income  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  supporting 
the  Christian  religion  in  the  Congregational  society,  so  called 


CHARITABLE  USE  73 

ill  said  town,  the  interest  thereof  to  be  paid  quarter-yearly 
to  the  minister  of  the  Congregational  persuasion,  who  shall 
be  regularly  ordained  and  statedly  ])7'eaching  in  said  society, 
it  is  said  it  would  be  difficult  to  establish  the  religious  opin- 
ion of  the  donor,  especially  where  the  denomiuatiou  to  which 
he  belonged  has  no  creed  or  admitted  confession  of  faith, 
and  where  there  are  no  written  artiiles  of  belief,  to  which 
it  is  agreed  he  assented,  nor  any  published  and  avowed 
statement  of  his  o[»inions  in  existence.  As  to  what  consti- 
tutes a  minister  of  tlie  Congregational  persuasion,  see  also 
the  articles  on  Congregational  Church.  Attorney-General 
ex  rel  Abbot  v  Dublin,  :5S  N.  H.  459. 

Foreign  Country.  Testatrix,  a  resident  of  jNIassachusetts, 
directed  her  executors  as  trustees  to  expend  a  specified  sum 
for  the  ])urchase  of  a  lot  and  the  erection  thereon  of  a  cliapel 
in  her  native  place  in  Ireland  to  be  used  for  purposes  of 
l)ublic  worship  under  the  auspices  of  the  Rojuau  Catholic 
Church.  Tlie  diarity  was  suslaini'd,  it  being  lield  that  the 
fact  that  the  chai*ily  would  be  adiniiiistercd  in  a  foreign 
country  did  not  of  itself  render  tlie  gift  void,  and  there  was 
nothing  to  show  that  it  would  not  be  a  good  public  charity 
by  the  law  of  Ireland.    Teele  v  Derry.  I(i8  Mass.  341. 

Georgia.  In  Georgia,  a  court  of  equity  has  jurisdiction  to 
enforce  the  i>rovisions  of  a  trust  independent  of  the  statute 
of  43  Elizabeth.  IJeall  v  Surviving  Executors  of  Fox,  4 
Ga.  404. 

Hospitality  Not  a  Charitable  Use.  Testator  included  the 
following  provision  in  his  w  ill : 

"Inasmuch  as  my  house  has  been  open  during  niy  lifetime 
(as  well  as  for  generations  back  in  the  lil'etinie  of  my  an- 
cestors of  the  same  name)  for  the  reception  and  entertain- 
ment of  ministers  and  others  traveling  in  the  service  of 
truth,  so  it  shall  continue  to  be  a  ])lace  for  the  reception  and 
entertainment  of  such  forever,  and  in  c(»nloi-niity  with  the 
preamble  of  this  my  last  will  and  testament  and  in  the  dis- 
cretion of  my  trustees.  And  my  will  further  is,  that  my 
west  front  room  chamber  shall  be  kept  in  constant  readiness 


71  'llll':  ('IN  II.   LAW    AM)  Tin;  CI  I  IK*  11 

lo  lo(l;;('  siicli  persons  ;is  sliiill  cioss  (i\ci'  <»i-  \isil  lliis  ishiinl 
in  liic  conisc  of  tlicii-  labors  in  llic  ^os|»('I  of  <'lii'isl,  jmhI 
olIuTs  who  arc  not  minislcrs,  l)ul  who  ai-e  li-av«'lin;^  to  nu'ct- 
ings  or  olluMwisc  in  tiu;  service  of  truth,  and  that  the  said 
room  be  kept  liirnislied  with  two  good  bedsteads,  two  beds, 
two  bolsters,  and  two  ]>air  of  ])illows  and  other  necessary 
furniture." 

This  was  held  to  be  u  bequest  for  hospitality  and  not  for 
a  charitable  use,  and  could  not  be  sustaiiuMl.  Kelly  v 
Mchols,  ISR.  I.  G2. 

Illinois.  The  statute  of  43  Elizabeth  is  in  force  in  Illinois. 
Welch  V  Caldwell,  22(;  Illinois  4SS. 

Incorporated  Society.  A  bequest  to  an  incori)orated  society 
for  pious  or  charitable  uses  is  valid.  Banks  v  Phelan,  4 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  80. 

Indefinite.  A  residuary  devise  to  charitable  and  ]»io\is 
uses  generally  is  not  void,  but  the  Crown  may  appoint.  So 
also  if  the  charitable  object  be  uncertain.  Attorney  General 
V  Herrick,  Anib.  <10ng. )  712. 

Testator  gave  the  residue  of  his  estate  to  the  people  called 
Methodists,  who  worshiju'd  at  that  place,  such  residue  to  be 
applied  as  directed  by  the  trustees  named  in  the  will,  and 
the  officiating  ministers  of  the  congregation.  The  provision 
did  not  constitute  a  charitable  use,  and  the  trustees  were 
held  entitled  to  recover  the  land  subject  to  such  disposiiion 
of  the  proceeds  as  the  court  of  chancery  might  direct.  Doe 
v  Copestake,  Cy  East  (Eng. )  828. 

A  bequest  of  a  sum  of  money  to  be  divided  equally  between 
Indian  missions  and  domestic  missions  in  the  United  States, 
without  naming  any  trustee  or  any  direct  beneficiary,  was 
held  to  be  too  indelinite,  but  the  trust  was  not  void,  and 
could  be  sui)ported  and  executed  under  tlie  act  of  181)3,  chap. 
701,  as  amended  in  1001,  chap.  201,  which  in  case  of  an 
indefinite  trustee,  vested  the  i)roiierty  in  the  supreme  court 
and  devolved  on  that  court  the  duty  of  executing  the  trust 
by  the  ai)pointment  of  a  proj^er  trustee.  In  this  case  the 
court  suggested  that  the  Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary 


CHARITABLE  USE  75 

Society  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Clmrcli  niiglit  properly 
be  designated  as  the  trustee,  for  the  reason  that  it  was  the 
only  society  i)erlorniing  general  missionarj-  service  in  the 
United  States  under  the  auspices  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  of  which  the  testatrix  was  a  lifelong  and 
active  member.  Bowman  v  Domestic  and  Foreign  Mission- 
ary Society,  182  N.  Y.  4!)4. 

A  gift  to  a  religious  society  for  the  benefit  of  the  "poor, 
lielpless,  and  dependent  members  and  or})han  children  of 
said  church"  was  sufficiently  definite.  The  poor  members 
could  be  readily  identified,  and  the  words  "orphan  children'' 
were  intended  to  include  children  bai)tized  into  the  church, 
whose  i)arents  are  dead.  The  provision  in  the  will  that  the 
distribution  should  be  made  by  the  church  was  construed 
to  mean  the  trustees  of  the  church,  and  not  by  the  society  as 
a  body.    Banner  v  Kolf,  43  Tex.  Civ.  Ai)p.  88. 

Charitable  bequests,  where  no  legal  interest  is  vested,  and 
which  are  too  vague  to  be  claimed  bj'  those  for  whom  the 
beneficial  interest  was  intended,  cannot  be  established  by  a 
court  of  equity,  exercising  its  ordinary  jurisdiction,  inde- 
pendent of  the  statute  of  -l.'J  Elizabeth.  Trustees,  riiiladel- 
phia  Baptist  Association  v  Hart's  Exe.  4  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  1. 

"In  tlie  case  of  a  will  making  a  charitable  bequest,  it  is 
immaterial  how  vague,  indclinite  or  uncertain  the  objects 
of  the  testator's  bounly  may  be,  piovidcd  there  is  a  discre- 
tionarj'  i)ower  vested  in  some  one  over  its  application  to 
those  objects.'-  Domeslic  and  Foreign  Missionary  Society's 
Aj.peal,  :{0  Pa.  St.  41'."). 

Limitation,  Cy  Pres.  Courts  of  eipiity  in  Hie  exercise  of 
their  oi-dinary  jurisdiction  cannot  devote  any  portion  of  a 
fund  dedicated  to  charitable  uses  to  any  object  not  contem- 
plate«l  by  the  donor;  when  pvo|>erly  is  given  to  a  class  of 
f>bjects  in  general  terms,  and  also  directed  to  be  applied  to 
one  of  them  in  sj>ecial  terms,  if  its  api)lication  to  that  one 
becomes  unlawful  or  iiiipijicticable,  the  doctrine  of  cy  pres 
authorizes  the  court  to  dev(»te  it  to  one  or  iiioic  of  tliose 
(Mubraced   in  the  general  intent   iii(»st   analogous  to  llie  (uic 


70  TH!-:  ('I\  IL   LAW   AM)  Till:  riUKCIl 

especiiilly  Uilinctl;  llu;  j^cnci'iil  iiilciit  iii;iy  iiol  he  cxin-csscd  in 
explicit  terms  if  llie  devise  or  (Icdicatioii  in  llic  li^^lit  of 
the  circuiiistjimcs  aullionze  the  coiirl  to  infer  tli;it  sndi  was 
the  donor's  wish  in  lluit  event.  Tlie  sjinie  rnlcs  iipply  when 
the  charity  is  the  result  of  contributions  by  a  large  number 
of  people.     U.  S.  V  Church,  S  Utah  :M0. 

Maine.  The  statute  of  4.'>  Elizabeth  c.  4  is  considered  to  be 
in  force  in  Maine.    Preachers  Aid  Society  v  Kich,  45  Me.  552. 

Massachusetts.  The  l']n<;lish  doctrine  of  charitable  uses  is 
in  force  in  jNlassachusetts,  and  a  tiust  to  a  religious  society 
for  the  support  of  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  is  a  public  and 
charitable  trust,  and  is  valid,  although  in  j)eri)etuity,  and  is 
equally  valid,  although  the  society  may  be  a  voluntary  body 
and  not  incorporated.  Congregational  Unitarian  Society 
V  Hale,  29  A.  I).  (N.  Y.)  aOO. 

Masses.  The  celebration  of  masses  for  a  particular  intent 
is  not  of  itself  a  charitable  object,  even  when  the  masses 
must  be  celebrated  in  public  and  so  become  an  important 
part  of  public  worship.  A  provision  in  a  will  was,  therefore, 
held  void  as  creating  a  perpetuity  which  required  masses  for 
the  repose  of  the  soul  of  the  testator  and  members  of  his 
famil}'  forever,  for  the  reason  that  no  one  could  definitely 
find  when  the  testator  and  all  his  family  shall  have  ceased 
to  need  the  benefit  of  the  nuisses.  In  this  case  it  was  found 
that  the  parish  priest  could  not  perform  the  obligation 
imposed  on  him  in  relation  to  masses  w  itliout  neglecting  his 
other  official  duties,  and  for  this  reason  the  performance  of 
the  obligation  was  impossible.  A  condition  which  is  impos- 
sible without  violation  of  duty  is  treated  as  .simply  impos- 
sible; and  if  a  condition  subsequent  be  ini])ossible,  the  con- 
dition fails  and  the  gift  remains  discharged  from  it.  Bran- 
nigan  v  Murphy,  1  Ir.  Rep.  418. 

A  bequest  of  a  sum  of  money  to  trustees  for  the  benefit  of 
a  church  on  the  testator's  farm,  with  instructions  to  hold 
a  service  there  yearly  for  his  soul  is  a  clearly  defined  chari- 
table use,  although  the  church  had  not  been  and  could  not 
be  incorporated.    Seda  v  Huble.  75  la.  429. 


CHARITABLE  USE  77 

New  York.  The  statute  ol"  Elizabetli  on  this  subject  was 
never  in  force  in  New  York.  Dutch  Church  in  Garden  St. 
V  Mott,  7  Paige  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  77. 

The  system  of  charitable  uses,  as  recognized  in  England 
prior  to  the  Revolution,  has  no  existence  in  this  State. 
Holmes  v  Mead,  52  N.  Y.  ^32. 

It  seems  that  the  law  as  to  charitable  uses  as  it  existed  in 
lOngland  at  the  time  of  the  American  Revolution  is  not  in 
force  in  New  York,  and  its  courts  have  only  such  jurisdiction 
ovei'  trusts  for  cliaritable  and  religious  purposes  as  are  exer- 
cised by  the  court  of  Chancery  in  England  independently  of 
the  prerogatives  of  the  Crown  and  the  Statute.  Owen  v 
Missionary  Society,  U  N.  Y.  384. 

The  English  rule  as  to  charitable  uses  is  in  force  in  New 
York.    Williams  v  Williams,  8  N.  Y.  525. 

Orphan  Asylum.  A  bequest  for  the  establishment  of  an 
orphan  asylum  and  a  hospital  for  sick  and  infirm  persons  is 
a  iKHpiest  to  a  charitable  use.  This  charity  was  eleemosy- 
nary in  character.  The  ])ropagation  of  religious  doctrines 
was  not  the  primary  object  of  the  foundation,  and  consider- 
ation of  the  religions  faith  of  a  testator  should  be  excluded 
in  ]»ntting  a  legal  construction  on  his  will.  Attorney  Gen- 
eral ex  rel  Bailey  v  Moore's  Executors,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  250. 

Religious  Reading.  Testator  bequeathed  the  residue  of  his 
estate  to  two  pei-sons  with  directions  that  it  be  used  "in  the 
purchase  and  distribution  of  such  religious  books  or  reading 
as  lliey  shall  deem  best,  and  as  fast  as  the  fuinls  shall  come 
into  their  hands."  The  bequest  was  sustained,  the  court 
liolding  that  the  word  "religious"  as  descriptive  of  books 
and  reading,  meant  such  books  or  reading  which  tend  to 
jtromote  the  religion  taught  by  the  Christian  dispensation, 
unless  the  meaning  is  so  limited  by  associate  words  or  cir- 
cumstances as  to  show  that  the  testator  had  reference  to 
some  other  mode  of  worship.  Simj)son  v  Welcome,  72  Me. 
496. 

Religious  Services.  The  maintenance  of  religious  services 
in  accordance  with  the  views  of  any  denomination  of  Chris- 


7S  Tin:  ("l\IL   LAW  AM)  Till;  <'lll   K<'ll 

tiniis  is  :i  inildic  clinrily  williin  llu'  iiicniiiM'^  of  the  stnlutc 
of  cliiiriliil)!!'  usrs  of  Connocticnt.  Miick  A]>j>oal,  71  Coiiii. 
122. 

Religious  Trust.  A  ^ift  of  a  sum  of  iiioiicy  to  he  expeinlcMl 
by  two  (l;ni<;lil('rs  aiul  a  j;ran(l(lau<;hter  of  the  testator  "to 
be  ai)])lie(l  by  tlioiii  in  their  best  judgment,  as  my  l)eqnest  for 
charitable  and  relijiious  ])ni'i)oses,  say  for  the  y)romotion  of 
the  Christian  religion,  witliout  ])i'ejndice  or  regard  to  sect, 
and  for  and  toward  the  relief  of  the  poor,"  was  declared  to 
be  too  vagne  and  indefinite  to  be  executed  and  tlierefore 
void.    Dulany  v  Middleton  Ex'rs.  72  Md.  07. 

A  testator  gave  the  residue  of  his  estate  "to  the  cause  of 
Christ,  for  the  benefit  and  promotion  of  true  evangelical 
piety  and  religion,"  and  the  executor  w^as  required  to  sell  the 
property  and  pay  the  proceeds  to  specified  trustees,  "to  be 
by  them  sacredly  appropriated  to  the  cause  of  religion  as 
above  stated,  to  be  distributed  in  such  divisions  and  to  such 
societies  and  religious  charitable  purposes  as  they  may  think 
fit  and  proper."  In  Going  v  Kniery,  10  Tick.  (Mass.)  107, 
it  was  held  that  the  trust  was  valid,  that  the  donees  were 
particularly  designated,  the  trust  was  clear,  its  general 
objects  sufficiently  indicated  to  bind  the  consciences  of  the 
trustees,  and  that  these  objects  were  sufficiently  certain  and 
definite  to  be  carried  into  effect  by  the  proper  judicial  tri- 
bunal. 

A  bequest  for  the  promotion  of  religious  and  charitable 
uses  and  enterprises  is  valid,  even  though  there  be  no  trustee 
ai)pointed  to  carry  the  same  into  effect ;  and  in  such  a  case, 
the  heir  at  law  or  the  executor,  as  the  case  may  be.  becomes 
the  trustee,  or  one  will  be  a])itointe(l  by  a  court  of  equity.  A 
residuary  bequest  for  such  charitable  uses  as  might  be  desig- 
nated by  a  majority  of  the  pastors  composing  tlie  ^Middlesex 
Union  Association  was  held  to  be  sufficiently  definite,  and 
an  appointment  made  by  such  pastors  was  deemed  to  be  a 
substantial  comi)liance  with  the  terms  of  the  bequest. 
Brown  v  Kelsey,  2  Cush.  (Mass.)  243. 

A  conveyance  of  property  for  the  su]>port  and  propagati(ni 


CHARITABLE  USE  71) 

of  religiou  is  a  charitable  use,  and  this  includes  j;;iits  tor 
the  erection,  maintenance  and  repair  of  church  edifices,  for 
the  promotion  of  worship,  and  the  su])port  ol"  tlie  ministry. 
The  rules  governing  the  establishment  and  administration 
of  charitable  trusts  are  ditferent  from  those  applicable  to 
])rivate  trusts,  in  giving  etiect  to  llie  intention  of  the  donor, 
and  in  establishing  the  charity.  If  the  gift  is  made  for  a 
public  charitable  purpose,  it  is  immaterial  that  the  trustee 
is  uncertain  or  incapable  of  taking,  or  that  tlie  ol)jects  of  the 
charity  are  uncertain  and  indefinite.  Courts  look  with  spe- 
cial favor  on  such  trusts.  Where  the  title  to  a  certain  lot 
was  vested  in  tlie  bishoj)  of  a  diocese  for  the  use  of  the 
church  in  a  certain  division,  and  the  title  to  other  lots  was 
vested  in  him  for  the  benefit  of  a  parish  in  his  diocese,  upon 
the  incorporation  of  such  diocese  and  ]»arish  the  title  was 
not  divested  from  the  bishoj)  and  vested  in  them.  The  trust 
did  not  attach  to  the  person  of  the  bishop,  but  to  his  office, 
and  i)assed  to  his  successor  in  office,  and  the  property  could 
not  be  mortgaged  without  consent  of  the  trustee.  Beckwith 
v  Rector,  etc.,  St.  Philip's  Parish,  G9  Ga.  5G4. 

A  trust  for  the  su])port  of  religion  is  a  charitable  use;  and 
where  all  sects  of  the  Christian  religion  stand  upon  an  equal 
footing  there  can  be  no  question  with  respect  to  a  supersti- 
tious use.  Attorney  General  v  Jolly,  1  Rich.  Eq.  (S.  C.) 
99. 

A  will  directing  the  executor  to  invest  the  residue  of  the 
estate  as  he  m;iy  deem  best,  as  a  fund,  the  annual  interest 
of  which  shall  be  apidie<l  for  the  benelit  of  the  Sabbnth 
school  library  of  the  First  Baptist  Church  in  Shelburne, 
or  the  Biiptist  Home  JNIissionary  Society,  A\liicliever  may  be 
deemed  most  suitable,  is  a  good  charitable  bequest.  Fair 
banks  v  Lamson,  99  Mass.  r).*i3. 

"Under  a  constitution  which  extends  the  same  protection 
to  every  religion  and  to  every  form  and  sect  of  religion, 
which  establishes  none  an<l  gives  no  preference  to  any,  there 
is  no  possible  standard  by  which  the  vnlidily  of  ;i  use  as 
pious  can  be  determined;  there  are  no  possible  me;ins  by 


so         Tin:  ri\  iL  \..\\\  AM)  'iMii;  cihimii 

wliicli  jutl^cs  ("in  hv  ('Ii;iI)I(mI  lo  (lisniiiiinnlc  Ik'Iwccii  si)(  Ii 
usoH  as  tend  to  pronioto  the  best  inlcicsls  of  society  by 
s|»re:i(liii;;  tlie  l<iiowle<l<,'c  :iih1  iiHiiI<;it  iii<;  the  pi-ictice  of  true 
relij^ioM,  ;iihI  those  which  can  \\:\\v  no  olher  ellect  than  to 
foster  the  ^fvowtii  of  i»crnici(»ns  errors,  to  «jive  a  dangeroiis 
|)erniancnc<'  l<>  llie  revi'ries  of  fanalicisni  or  enconi-a<;e  and 
I»eri)etnale  the  ol)servances  ()(■  a  coniipt  and  <h'.i:rading  snper- 
stition."  Andrew  v  New  York  Bihh;  and  Prayer  Book 
Society,  4  Sainlf.  (X.  V.)   ISI. 

Testator  j;ave  all  the  residue  of  his  estate  to  the  I'^vangel- 
ical  Lutheran  Send  nary,  with  a  ])i'ovision  Cor  the  use  of  a 
])ortion  thereof  for  the  |)nrpose  of  erectinj;  a  house  of  wor- 
ship for  the  Evan}j;elical  liUtherau  Society  in  Stamford, 
aj)i)lying  the  remaiuder  of  the  income  to  the  supjmrt  of  the 
])astor,  and  the  maintenance  of  the  society.  One  of  the  con- 
ditions of  the  jiift  was  that  the  service  in  the  church  shouhl 
be  in  the  German  language.  Another  condition  was  that  a 
memorial  tablet  should  be  jdaced  at  the  nmin  entrance  of 
the  church.  It  Mas  held  a  cJiaritable  use,  and  was  sustained. 
Mack  Appeal.  71  Conn.  122. 

Roman  Catholic,  Clergymen.  Where  a  bequest  of  personal 
estate  was  made  to  executors  in  trust  to  apjdy  same  for  such 
charitable  ])urposes  as  the  Roman  Catholic  Archbishop  of 
Dublin  should  direct,  it  was  held  that  the  Archbishop  might 
receive  the  fund  for  the  purjiose  of  applying  it  in  i)art  for 
the  maintenance  of  Roman  Catholic  officiating  clergymen  of 
his  diocese,  "directing  them  as  a  matter  of  religious  and 
moral  duty,  but  not  of  le^al  obligation,  to  say  masses  for  the 
testator's  s(ud.''    RIount  v  \iditz,  1  Ir.  R.  42  (1805). 

Sermons  and  Music.  In  Turner  v  Ogden,  1  Cox.  Rep.  (Eng.) 
'Sm  it  was  held  that  a  biMiuest  for  preaching  a  sermon 
on  Ascension  Day.  for  keejiing  the  chimes  of  the  church 
in  repair,  and  for  a  payment  to  be  made  to  tlie  singers  in 
the  gallery  of  the  church  are  all  bequests  to  charitable 
uses. 

Shakers.  For  an  interesting  discussion  of  the  effect  of 
contributing  pntperty  to  a  Shaker  society  and  for  the  forma- 


CHAIMTAULi:   TSE  81 

tion  ol"  a  coiiiiimnily  or  cliiiiili  lor  tlic  liciu'lit  oT  llie  inc'iiil)i'is 
iu  carrying  torwjiid  <  liaritable  and  religious  work,  see  Gass 
and  Bonta  v  Williilc  i'  Dana  (Ky.)  17(). 

South  Carolina.  The  statute  of  IClizalicili  in  relalicjii  to 
charitable  uses  li;is  never  been  adopted  in  Soniii  Carolijia. 
Attorney  Oenenil  v  -lolly.  1  Kich.  lOq.  (S.  C.)  UU. 

Sunday  School,  Diversion.  A  be(iuest  in  trust  to  aid  iu  the 
eucourageiuent  of  Sun<lay  schools  by  a  society  organized 
for  that  purpose,  was  sustained  in  (.\irter  v  Green,  :>  Kay 
and  J.  (Eng.)  51)1.  The  charity  could  not  be  deieated  by 
the  fact  that  the  trustees  might  use  the  fund  for  another 
purpose.  The  bequest  was  valid,  unless  i)y  the  rules  of  the 
organization  the  society  was  required  to  use  the  fund  for  a 
purpose  not  sanctioned  by  law.  A  mere  possibility  of  an- 
other use  could  not  defeat  the  testator's  intention. 

Unincorporated  Society.  A  devise  to  an  unincorp<)rate<l 
society  is  valid,  and  if  made  to  the  vestrymen  of  a  church 
the  devise  is  not  invalid  because  indefinite,  and  the  rule 
against  perpetuities  is  not  violated  l)y  a  devise  to  the  vestry- 
men aud  to  their  successors  with  jiowcr  to  sell,  exchange  or 
dispose  of  the  property.    Biscoe  v  Thweatt,  74  Ark.  545. 

Societies  or  bodies  of  men  unincorporated  have  ever  been 
considered  at  common  law  as  inca])able  of  receiving  gifts  or 
legacies,  to  be  applie<l  to  charitable  uses,  :ind  it  has  been 
the  invariable  i)olicy  of  our  Slate  (N'ennonl)  to  consider 
them  capable.    Burr  I'x'rs.  v  Sniitli.  7  \'l.  I'll. 

A  gift  of  1:111(1  for  such  ])urposes  to  an  uniiicorporat<'d  reli- 
gious society  is  valid  in  Illinois.  Alden  v  St.  I'eter's  rurish. 
Sycamore,  158  111.  V>-\\. 

Bequests  for  charitable  juu-poses  to  unincorporated  soci- 
eties are  sustained  where  the  object  is  coinpeleiit,  ami  is 
designated  or  may  be  clcnily  ascerlMiiKMl.  NMinc  the  dc 
scription  of  the  legatee  is  uncertain,  evidt'iicc  is  admissihlc 
to  identify  the  legatee  intende<l.  Ilornbeck  v  American 
Bible  Society,  2  Sandf.  (Ml.  (  N.  V.  i  1:5:5. 

A  grant  of  land  by  a  town  for  a  cemetery  is  not  void 
because  made  to  an  nnincoi  porati'd  society.     The  gi*anl  was 


SL'  TIIK  CIN  IL   LAW  AND  Till:  (  IUKCII 

VJilidiitcfl  l»y  tln'  Niil>s('(|iM'iil  iiicoi|»f)T";ili(ui.  ('luillumi  v 
Itr.-iiiH'i-d,  I  I   ( 'oiiti.  (10. 

Unitarian.  A  l<'j?Jicy  to  tlu^  iiiiiiistcr  or  iiiinistcrH  of  a  speri- 
fu'd  rnil;ifi;ni  ilijipcl  "to  he  jippliiMl  in  siicli  iiiiiimcr  uh  he  or 
(Im'v  sliiill  lliiiik  lit  touiiid  llic  .sii|ipuil  of  llic  I'iiil;iri;ins" 
wns  .snstiiiiHMl  in  lie  r.nrnclt,  2!»  L.  J.  <'Ii.  (  lOnjf.)  871. 

Vault  and  Tomb,  Repairs.  A  ;^r;nit  of  1;iim1s  in  trust  per- 
jd'hi.illy  lo  rcpjiii',  :i!i<l.  if  n<'('»l  ])(>.  rebuild  a  vault  and  tomb 
standiiijj  on  the  land,  and  peiniit  the  same  to  be  used  as  a 
family  vault,  for  the  donor  and  her  famiU,  is  not  a  charilable 
use  within  the  statute  of  1)  (Jeo.  2,  C.  'Mi.     Doe  v  Pitcher,  (5 

Taunt.  K.  (iOnj,M  :;(;::. 


CHARITY 

Alteration  or  diversion,  invalid,  83. 

Beneficiaries,  present  or  future,  84. 

Defined,  84. 

History,  84. 

Discretion  of  trustees,  84. 

Dissenters,  85. 

Donor's  intention,  80. 

Foreign  corporation,  80. 

Identifying  beneficiary,  87. 

Indefinite,  87. 

Irving  Society,  87. 

Parliamentary  restriction,  88. 

Poor,  88. 

Principles  universal,  88. 

Religious  exercises  and  self-denial,  89. 

Religious  instruction,  89. 

Trustees  to  account,  9(). 

Uncertainty,  free  churches,  90. 

Unincorporated  society,  90. 

Alteration  or  Diversion,  Invalid.  Tlu*  clKirily  iimsl  he  ac- 
cepted upon  the  terms  proposed.  II  taiinol  be  altered  by 
any  agreement  between  the  heirs  of  the  donor  and  the 
tiMistees  or  donees.  iJnt  it  may  be  carried  into  elVect  accord- 
ing to  the  intention  of  the  donor,  and  in  like  manner  llie 
mode  of  its  execution  will  be  |»nrsned  when  indicated,  nnless 
the  one  or  the  other  becomes  im|»ract icable,  and  then  only 
may  it  be  altered  cy  pres.     (iilman  v  llaniilimi,   Ki  III.  l'IT). 

A  diarit}^  given  for  a  pai-ticniar  jmrpose  cannot  be  altered 
or  diverted  to  any  other.  It  mnsi  be  acceptt'd  and  retaine<l 
npon  the  .same  terms  npon  which  it  was  givcTi,  and  no  c(»n- 
cnrrence  among  the  donees  can  operate  to  tianslcr  or  apjily 
it  to  other  i»nrj>oses.    .MciJoberts  v  M(MuIy,  1!»  Mo.  Ap|».  -(». 

83 


SI  'I'm:  <'i\  iL  LAW  .\.\i>  'I'lii:  <iii  kcii 

A  charily  j;i\<'ii  Ini-  a  ]»arli<iilar  imiposc  caiinol  Im;  altcrcW 
<ir  (liv<'rtcMl  to  any  oilier.     N'cnahlc  v  C'offnian,  li  \V.  \'a.  ;>I0. 

Beneficiaries,  Present  or  Future.  A  charity  may  be  crcatiMl 
ii(»t  only  lor  the  hcndil  (tf  those  who  are  in  existence,  or  who 
may  (imilily  lhenisel\cs  to  heconie  ohjecis  of  the  bounty. 
Attorney  deneral  ex  rel  Independent  or  < 'onjii-egational 
Church  of  ^VaI»l•e1aw  v  (^'Icrjj^y  Society,  S  Kich.  Eci.  (S.  (.'.) 
1!K). 

This  case  ajtjiears  aj;ain  in  10  Rich.  Eq.  (S.  C. )  004,  where 
the  court  held  that  a  "corporation  for  religious  or  eleeinrjsy- 
nary  purposes  may,  without  violation  of  the  constitution, 
ajtply  for,  and  obtain  an  amendment  to  their  charter  author- 
I'/Au*::;  them  to  ap]>ly  their  siirjdus  funds  to  other  puri>oses 
than  those  for  which  the  charity  was  originally  established." 

Defined.  A  diarity,  in  the  legal  sense,  may  be  more  fully 
detined  as  a  gift  to  be  applied  consistently  with  existing 
laws,  for  the  benefit  of  any  indefinite  number  of  persons, 
either  by  bringing  their  minds  or  hearts  under  the  intluence 
of  education  or  religion,  by  relieving  their  bodies  from  dis- 
ease, sulTering  or  constraint,  by  assisting  them  to  establish 
themselves  in  life,  or  by  erecting  or  maintaining  public 
buildings  or  works  or  otherwise  lessening  the  burdens  of 
government.  It  is  immaterial  whether  the  purpose  is  called 
charitable  in  the  gift  itself  if  it  is  so  described  as  to  show 
that  it  is  charitable  in  its  nature.  Jackson  v  Phillips,  1  + 
Allen  (  Mass. )  5;i9  sustaining  a  legacy  to  trustees  to  be  used 
in  caring  for  fugitive  slaves;  see  also  Crerar  v  Williams,  145 
111.  (;l»."). 

A  i)urely  i)ublic  charity  may  be  defined  as  one  which  dis- 
charges, in  whole  or  in  ])art,  a  duty  which  the  commonwealth 
owes  to  its  indigent  and  helpless  citizens.  Commonwealth  v 
Thomas,  20  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1128. 

History.  For  a  review  of  decisions  relative  to  charities 
and  charitable  uses,  see  the  chancellors'  oi>inion  in  ^IcCartee 
V  Or}>han  Asylum  Society,  I)  Cowen  (X.  Y.  I  4:57. 

Discretion  of  Trustees.  A  becpiest  of  the  residue  of  personal 
estate   for   such    reliuious   and   charitable   institutions   and 


(  HARITY  85 

purposes  witliiu  the  kiuydoin  <»t  lOughuuJ  Jis  in  the  opiniou 
of  the  testator's  trustees  should  be  deemed  fit  and  proper, 
is  a  good  charitable  bequest.  Baker  v  Snlton,  1  Keen  (Eng.) 
224. 

Dissenters.  In  Attorney-General  v  Wilson,  IG  Sim.  (Eng.) 
210,  constiiiiii^  two  deeds  by  Lady  ITewley,  one  in  1704  and 
the  other  in  1707,  by  which  she  convened  certain  property 
in  trust  "lor  such  poor  and  godly  jireachers  for  the  time 
being  of  Christ's  Holy  (losjiel,  and  of  such  j)oor  and  godly 
widows  for  the  time  being  of  such  preachers,  as  the  trustees 
for  the  time  being  shall  think  fit;  and  for  promoting  the 
preaching  of  Christ's  Holy  (losjtel  in  sucli  manner  and  in 
such  poor  places  as  the  trustees  for  the  time  being  should 
think  fit;  for  educating  such  young  men  designed  for  the 
ministry  of  Chrisl's  Holy  (Jospel  as  the  trustees  for  the  time 
being  should  think  fit ;  and  for  relieving  such  godly  persons 
in  distress,  being  fit  objects  of  her  own  and  the  trustees 
charity,  as  the  trustees  for  llie  time  being  should  think  fit"; 
the  court  said  that  Lady  Hewley,  being  an  lOnglisli  subject 
and  the  property  being  located  in  England,  where  her  own 
church  relations  were  eslablisiied,  the  charity  must  be  lim- 
ited 1o  English  nonconformists.  The  term  "godly  preachers 
of  Christ's  Holy  Gospel,"  or  "godly  preachers,"  meant  those 
]»ersons  who  answered  the  description  of  orthodox  English 
dissenters  at  that  time,  and  who  resided  in  England;  and 
this  description  was  held  to  include  those  who,  at  the  time 
of  Lady  Hewley's  death  or  thereafter,  were  or  should  be 
"orthodox  English  dissenting  ministers  of  Baptist  churches, 
of  Congregational  or  lndei)endent  churches,  and  of  Presby- 
terian churches  in  England,  whicli  are  not  in  conneition 
with,  or  under  the  jurisdiction  of  tlie  Kirk  of  Scothuid.  or 
the  Secession  Church."  The  term  "godly  widows"  was  held 
to  mean  wiciows  of  dissenting  ministers  above  descril)e<l, 
and  the  plirase,  "tlie  jtreaching  of  Christ's  Holy  Gosptd," 
meant  preaching  by  sntli  ministers,  and  "the  ministry  of 
Chri.st's  Holy  (Jospcd"  meant  the  ministry  exercised  by  snch 
orthodox    English    dissenting    ministers;    that    the    words 


sc  'I'lii:  (I  \iL  LAW  ANh  Till:  i'lii  i:rii 

**;i<)<ll_V  iik'IiiIm'I's"  iiicliHlcd  iiicinlx-is  (il  the  <liui"cli  above 
iiKMitlfHM'd,  and  that  iiiiiialcs  of  tlir  hospital  cMtahlished  by 
IIm'  <]i'i't]  iiiiist  be  poor  iiicinbcis  of  siicli  clmrchcs. 

J{('(pi('sls  wiTc  made  lor  the  beiielit  of  poor  dissenting  min- 
i.sterH  living  in  any  coutity.  It  was  in  proof  that  there  were 
three  distinct  societies  of  dissenters,  and  that  collections 
were  made  lor  the  poor  ministers  of  each.  It  was  held  that 
the  l)e(|nests  were  good,  and  that  they  were  intended  for  all 
the  ministry  in  general,  and  it  was  ordered  that  the  money 
be  i»aid  to  all  the  treasurers  of  the  three  denominations. 
Waller  v  Chi  Ids,  Anibl.  (Eng.)  524. 

Donor's  Intention.  "The  necessary  public  benefit  is  sought 
in  the  character  of  the  purpose  according  to  the  intention 
of  the  donor.  If  that  intention  be  the  performance  of  acts 
which  tend  to  benefit  the  j)ublic,  the  court  never  proceeds  to 
inipiire  whether  the  result  must  be  a  benefit  which  it  is  cer- 
tain would  not  otherwise  accrue  to  it."  A  gift  for  the  sup- 
]>ort  of  a  minister  tends  to  the  advancement  of  religion  be- 
cause it  contributes  to  the  support  of  its  minister;  and  the 
court,  in  such  a  case,  does  not  inquire  into  the  quantum  of 
his  former  stipend,  or  the  necessity  for  its  increase.  "By 
analogy,  a  gift  to  a  clergyman  because  he  publicly  performs 
Divine  service  ought  to  be  deemed  charitable,  whether  the 
d(uiee  was  or  was  not  previously  subject  to  a  moral,  or  even 
to  a  legal,  obligation  to  perform  it."  Attorney-General  v 
Hall,  2  Irish  R.  291 ,  309  ( 1896 ) . 

The  court  will  not  decree  the  execution  of  a  trust  of  a 
charity  in  a  manner  difterent  from  that  intended,  excei)t 
so  far  as  they  see  that  the  intention  cannot  be  executed  liter- 
ally, but  another  mode  may  be  adopted  consistent  with  his 
general  intention,  so  as  to  execute  it,  though  not  in  mode, 
in  substance.  If  the  mode  becomes  by  subsequent  circum- 
stances imjtossible,  the  general  object  is  not  to  be  defeated, 
if  it  can  be  attained.  Attorney-General  v  Boultbee,  2  Ves. 
(Eng.)  Jr.  380. 

Foreign  Corporation,  In  University  v  Tucker,  31  W.  Va. 
021,  it  was  held  that  foreign  cor] (orations  may  take  bequests 


CUAKITY  87 

of  cLarit}-  uikK'T  a  will  mack*  in  this  Slate,  when  and  to  the 
extent  aiilhoiiy.ed  hv  their  charterss. 

Identifying  Beneficiary.  Testatrix  becineathed  a  fund  to 
any  institution  in  I'hiladelphia  that  will  give  shelter  to 
homeless  people  at  night,  irrespective  of  creed,  color  or  con- 
dition. The  Philadeli>hia  Society  for  Organizing  Charity 
W'as  the  only  claimant  of  the  fund.  This  society  was  organ- 
ized in  1878,  and  about  tive  years  afterward  Wayfarers' 
Lodges  were  created,  and  shelter  lias  been  j)rovi<le<l,  and  is 
still  furnished,  and  will  continue  to  be  given  by  the  society 
to  homeless  people  at  night  in  the  manner  specified  in  the 
will.  This  society  was  held  entitled  to  the  bequest.  Crox- 
all's  Estate,  1()2  Pa.  St.  570. 

Indefinite.  Testator  directed  the  executor  to  hold  the  resi- 
due of  his  estate  in  trust  for  the  education  of  freedmen,  the 
income  to  be  paid  by  him  to  the  proper  oilicers  of  the  freed- 
men's  association,  or  disposed  of  as  he  pleases.  There  was 
no  society  existing  under  the  name  given  in  the  will,  an<l 
the  court  rejected  evidence  ottered  to  show  that  the  society 
intended  was  that  organized  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  Cincinnati.  The  bequest  was,  therefore,  void  for 
uncertainty.  The  term  "freedmen"  was  said  to  include  that 
class  of  persons  who  were  emancipated  during  the  late  Civil 
War  and  their  descendants.  Fairlield  v  Lawson,  50  Conn. 
501. 

AVhere  a  testator,  by  his  will,  directs  the  trustees  aiid 
guardians  of  his  child  to  ]>ay  o\er  annually  a  certain  por- 
tion of  the  income  of  his  estate  to  the  trustees  of  the  llills- 
borough  School,  to  be  l>y  them  ajfplied  towards  feeding, 
clothing,  and  educating  the  ])ooi'  children  of  ('ai-olim» 
county,  which  attends  the  jtoor  <m-  chai-ity  sclnxd  established 
at  Hillsborough,  in  the  sai<l  county,  it  was  held  that  the 
becpiest  w^as  void  for  uncei'lainty  as  to  the  persons  who  wei-e 
to  take  under  it.  Dashiell  v  Attorney  (Jeneral.  0  liar.  iS:  .F. 
(Md.)  1. 

Irving  Society.  Fn  Attorney  (Jeneral  v  Lawes,  S  IIai-e 
(Eng. )  :y2,  a  bequest  of  a  sum  to  be  paid  annually  to  a  bank 


ss         'iiii:  <M\  11,  L.WN  AM)  'I'm;  riii  kcii 

lor  I  lie  "sole  use  :iiiil  Itciiclil  oT  any  ol  1  In-  mill islcrs  and 
iiiniilirrs  of  I  lie  cIiiiicIk's  now  roiniiii;^  upon  IIm*  AjjOstolic 
(lo<'li-iii('s  lnoii;^lil  I'orwaid  l)y  \\u'.  laic  IMward  Irviiif;,  wlio 
may  Ix'  pcisccnlcd.  ajij^iicvcd,  or  in  poverty,  for  prcacliinj^ 
or  ii|iliol(liiiji  lliosc  <lo<l  lines,  or  lialf  tlie  sum  may  he  appro- 
jiiiated  I'or  llie  henelit  of  the  church  rouiKJed  hy  tiie  hit(! 
Ildward  Irxinji  in  Xewniaii  Street,''  was  sustained  as  ii  vali<l 
charily.  IT  there  should  aflerward  he  no  jicrsoiis  for  whose 
heiielil  tiie  t'liiid  could  i)e  ap|»lied,  the  charity  would  uot.  fail 
for  that  reason,  hul  the  court  would  adminisler  as  nearly  as 
praci  icahle,  according;   lo  the  doiioi-'s  iiitenlion. 

Parliamentary  Restriction,  hi  Attorney-CJeneral  v  fJnise, 
L'  N'erii.  (I'^Ti;;.)  iMid,  it  was  Jield  that  a  charity  for  the  pur- 
pose of  proi)af;iitinjj;  in  Scotland  the  <loct lines  of  the  Church 
of  Eiifjland  could  not  he  fully  executed  hecause  of  a  recent 
act  of  Parliament,  but  the  legacy  did  not  fall  into  the  resid- 
uary estate,  and  the  purpose  of  the  cliarity  might  be  exe- 
cuted so  far  as  practicable  in  view  of  the  act  of  Parliament. 

Poor.  A  becpiest  to  the  town  of  Skowhegan,  Maine,  for 
the  worthy  and  unfortunate  poor,  and  to  save  them  from 
pauperism,  to  be  funded,  and  one  half  of  the  income  of  the 
sum  to  be  expended  by  the  women's  aid  society  formed  for 
that  purpose,  was  sustained  in  Dascomb  v  Marston,  80  Me. 
223. 

A  gift  to  the  poor  of  the  town  or  parish,  or  church,  is  a 
public  charity  to  be  applied  by  the  ministers  and  deacons 
according  to  the  intentions  of  the  donor.  Attorney-General 
V  Old  S(MitIi  Society  in  Boston,  i:>  Allen  (Mass.)  474, 

Principles  Universal.  The  principles  of  the  law  of  charities 
are  not  confined  to  a  particular  i)eople  or  nation,  but  prevail 
in  all  civilized  countries  pervaded  by  the  .spirit  of  (Chris- 
tianity. They  are  found  imbedded  in  the  civil  law  of  Rome, 
in  the  laws  of  European  nations,  especially  in  the  laws  of 
that  nation  from  which  our  institutions  are  derived.  A 
leading  and  prominent  principle  prevailing  in  them  all  is 
that  ])roperty  devoted  to  a  charitable  and  worthy  object, 
promotive  of  the  public  good,  shall  be  applied  to  the  pur- 


CHARITY  S9 

]M)ses  of  ils  (Icdiiatiuii.  ami  iiiotci-U'd  Ironi  .spoliation  and 
li-oiH  (livc'isioii  to  other  ((hjccts.  Though  ilevoted  to  a  i»ar- 
ticuliir  ii.se,  it  i«  considoi-cd  as  j^iveii  to  the  pidtlic,  ainl  is. 
therefore,  taken  under  the  <;iiardianshi)»  ol'  the  hiws.  11  it 
cannot  be  ai)i)lied  to  the  particular  use  lor  winch  it  was 
intended,  either  because  the  objects  to  be  sidjserved  have 
failed  or  becau.se  they  have  become  unlawful  and  rei)Uj;nant 
to  the  public  policT  of  the  state,  it  will  be  api)lied  to  some 
object  of  kindred  character  so  as  to  fultill  in  substance  if 
not  in  manner  and  form  the  purpose  of  its  con.secralion. 
The  Late  Corporation  of  the  Church  of  .Jesus  Christ  of 
Latter  Day  Saints  v  T'nilcd  Slates.  i:!(;  V.  S.  1. 

Religious  Exercises  and  Self-Denial.  A  volnnlary  associa- 
tion of  women  loi-  Ihc  pui-pose  of  woiking  out  their  own 
salvation  by  relij^^ions  exercises  an<l  self-denial  has  ninie  of 
the  requisites  of  a  charitable  institntion,  whether  the  word 
"charitable"  is  use<l  in  its  j)opular  sen.se  or  in  its  legal  sense. 
Admitting  that  religious  ))urposes  are  charitable,  that  can 
only  be  true  as  to  religious  services  tending  directly  or 
indirectly  toward  the  instruction  or  the  edification  of  the 
public;  an  annuity  to  an  iiulividnal  so  long  as  he  spent  his 
time  in  retirement  and  constant  devotion,  wonld  not  be 
charitable,  nor  would  a  gift  to  ti'n  jjcrsons,  .so  long  as  they 
lived  together  in  retirement  and  i>erformed  acts  of  «levotion 
be  charitable.    Cocks  v  Manners,  ll'  L.  K.  Kq.  (ICng. )  574. 

Religious  Instruction.  A  becpu'st  to  a  widow  for  life,  then 
to  the  church  of  which  she  might  be  a  niendjer  at  her  death, 
for  such  u.ses  as  the  Conference  might  determine,  "especially 
for  the  support  of  Sunday  schools,  for  the  jnircha.se  of 
Bibles,  and  religious  tracts,  and  the  distribution  of  the 
same  among  the  destitute,' and  for  the  supjiort  of  missi(»n- 
aries,"  was  sustained  in  Attorney-Cjieneral  v  Jolly,  I  Rich. 
Eq.  (S.  C.)  09. 

A  conveyance  of  land  "in  trust  for  the  uses  of  a  Sabbath 
School  and  for  the  diffusion  of  Christian  i»riiici])les  as 
taught  and  i)racticed  by  Christian  lOvangelical  denomina- 
tions, with  j)ower  to  erect,  i-epair.  and  renew  from  time  to 


!M»  'I'lii:  ciNii.  LAW  AM)  'I'm:  cnriMii 

lime  :ill  l»iiil<liii;;s  iicccss.iry  lo  <;ii-i-y  (Hil  llic  object  Jiiid  piir- 
])()s»'s  of  llic  tiMisl"  coiislilnlcs  a  |)ul)lk-  charity.  Morvillc 
V  Fowl.-.  I  M  ^lass.  KM). 

Trustees  to  Account.  Tru.stoo.s  of  ji  charity  may  be  requiicd 
by  Ihc  court  of  chancory  to  account  for  income  whicii  has 
been  misai)|»li<'<l.  f<»i-  any  len<?lli  of  time,  without  regard  to 
the  .statute  of  limitations;  but  an  application  of  such 
income,  made  in  uood  faith  and  continued  for  many  years, 
will  not  be  li«j;htly  disturbed,  esj)ecially  after  the  lap.se  of  a 
considerable  time.  Attorney  General  v  Old  South  Society 
in  P.oslon,  l.",  Allen   (:\rass.)  474. 

Uncertainty,  Free  Churches.  Testator  devised  his  real 
estate  and  directed  that  it  be  sold  and  the  proceeds  "laid 
out  in  building  convenient  places  of  worship  free  for  the 
use  of  all  Christians  who  acknowledge  the  Divinity  of  Christ 
and  the  necessity  of  spiritual  regeneration."  It  was  held 
that  the  devise  was  void  for  uncertainty,  the  court  observ- 
ing that  the  will  was  silent  as  to  the  place  where  the 
churches  were  to  be  erected,  and  that  there  was  no  owner- 
ship conferred  on  anj-  religions  congregation  nor  any  trus- 
tees for  it.  "It  seems  impossible  for  a  court  to  hold  that  a 
charity  for  religion  is  sufficiently  specific,  in  which  no 
l>art  of  the  Christian  world  has  any  property',  legal  or 
equitable ;  which  no  one  has  a  right  to  manage  or  preserve, 
and  in  which  the  court  would,  perhaps,  be  daily  called  on  to 
regulate  the  uses  of  the  buildings,  which  the  various  sects 
would  endeavor  to  concentrate,  each  one  in  itself.''  White 
v  Attorney  General.  44  Am.  Dec.  92. 

Unincorporated  Society.  A  bequest  was  made  in  1700  by  a 
resi«lent  of  Mrginia  to  the  "Baptist  Association  that  for 
ordinary  meets  at  Philadelphia  annually,"  "for  the  educa- 
tion of  youths  of  the  Baptist  denomination  who  shall  appear 
l)romising  for  the  ministry,  always  giving  a  preference  to 
the  descendants  of  my  father's  family."  The  testator  died 
in  170.").  At  that  time  the  Baptist  Society  in  IMiiladelphia 
was  unincorporated,  but  became  incorporated  in  1707.  It 
\\as  held   tliat  the  descrijttion  of  the  association   was  sufli- 


("IIAKITV  91 

cieiitly  definite,  lnit  uot  beiiij;  iiicoiiioiated,  it  was  incapable 
of  taking  the  tiutst,  nor  could  the  bequest  be  taken  by  the 
individuals  conii)osing  the  society.  They  could  not  execute 
the  trust  which  was  to  the  association  and  not  to  the  in<li- 
viduals.  It  was,  therefore,  held  that  at  the  death  of  the 
testator  there  were  no  persons  in  existence  capable  of  tak- 
ing this  bequest.  The  corporation  subsequently  formed  could 
not  take  it,  and  the  bequest  became  a  jiart  of  the  testator's 
residuary  estate.  Trustees,  IMiiladelphia  Baptist  Associa- 
tion V  Hart's  Executors,  -I  AVheat.  (U.  S.)  1. 


CHRISTIAN  CHURCH 

Organization,  92. 

Form  of  government,  93. 

Changing  doctrine,  93. 

Church  of  Christ,  94. 

Division,  effect  on  property  rights,  94. 

Incorporation,  eff(>ct,  95. 

Officers  constitute  corporation,  96. 

Unincorporated  society,  90. 

Organization.  This  is  a  bodj-  of  religious  people  calling 
themselves  Disciples  of  Christ,  or  Christians,  known  in  the 
aggregate  as  the  Christian  Church,  and  existing  in  inde- 
pendent local  clinrches,  and  having  no  ecclesiastical  trib\inal 
superior  to  tlie  local  church;  said  local  churclies  being  con- 
gregational in  form  of  government. 

Tliese  churches  have  no  formulated  creed  or  articles  of 
faith,  but  claim  to  be  guided  in  their  faith  and  practice  by 
the  Bible,  and  it  is  and  always  has  been  a  fundamental 
principle  with  them,  that  nothing  more  or  less  than  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ  as  the  ^<on  of  God  and  the  Saviour  of  num. 
and  obedience  to  his  commands,  is  to  be  required  to  consti- 
tute i)ersons  Christians,  and  to  entitle  them  to  membership 
and  good  standing  in  said  Christian  churches. 

They  hold  to  immersion  exclusively  as  Christian  baptism, 
and  they  teach  that  bai)tism,  when  preceded  by  faith  in 
Christ,  repentance  from  sin,  and  a  public  confession  of  such 
faith,  is  for  tlie  remission  of  sins,  but  tliey  liave  never 
required  unifoi-mity  in  oi»inions  as  to  this  j)ur[)()se  or  design 
of  baptism,  and  it  has  been  their  custom  and  usage  from  the 
beginning,  and  held  by  them  to  be  in  accord  with  tlieir  fun- 
damental princijtles  above  stated,  to  regard  and  treat  as 
Christians    jtersons    from    otlier    Christian    denominations 

92 


CHKIt-^TIAN  CIIUKCH  IKJ 

who  have  been  iiniiierstMl  upon  prolcssioii  of  their  faith  in 
Christ,  and  to  receive  such  jjersons  into  membership  and 
full  fellowship  in  their  churches,  whether  or  not  they  believe 
that  baptisn)  is  for  the  remission  of  sins. 

It  is  also  a  part  of  their  fundamental  principles  that  mis- 
sionary societies,  conventions,  and  similar  voluntary  or- 
ganizations foi-  Christ iiin  woi-k,  as  well  as  the  use  of  instru- 
mental music  ill  connection  witli  tlieir  woi-ship  in  the 
churches,  are  re<;;irded  as  exj)edients  concernim;  whicli  no 
rule,  ]>ro  oi-  con,  can  be  made,  l)ut  re^ardini;-  wliicli  each 
hK-al  chui-ch  or  con^i-e<;;it  ion,  and  eacli  iiidi\idual.  isallo\\('<I 
libei-ty  in  opinion  and  pi-actice;  and  tliey  liave  j;ener;illy. 
since  the  be<;inninn'  of  the  denonunat ion,  h;id  tlieir  <ienerai 
societies  and  conventions  foi-  missictnarv  w(»i-k,  and  each  of 
such  voluntary  or«;ani/alioiis  beinj;-  alhtwe*!,  ;ind  havinj; 
free  access  to  and  use  of  their  respective  church  houses  oi- 
places  of  worship  in  which  to  hold  their  meetings  and 
transact  their  business.  Peace  v  First  (Mnistian  riiurch, 
McCJregor,  20  Te.x.  Civ.  Ai)p.  S5. 

Form  of  Government.  The  government  (»f  a  local  society, 
according  to  the  doctrine  an<l  usage  of  tiie  denomina1i(m,  is 
vested  in  the  elders  and  deacons;  tlie  foniK'r  administering 
spiritual  atfairs,  such  as  te;iching  and  employing  preachers, 
while  the  deacons  manage  the  tinances  and  attend  gi'iierally 
to  the  material  needs  of  the  clini-ch.  The  eldeis  and  deacons 
are  selected  and  ordained  by  other  eldei-s  of  the  church,  and 
cannot  otherwise  be  appointed.  Pi'ickett  v  Wells,  117  Mo. 
Re.  502. 

Changing  Doctrine.  Up  to  1802.  when  tlie  jiasior  died,  tlie 
general  accejtted  docti-ines  of  that  denomination  wei-e 
taught;  the  Sunday  school,  in  which  were  \ised  the  interna- 
tional Sunday  School  leaves,  lucpared  for  ilu-  purpose  of 
elucidating  the  Scriptures,  llourislied  ;  an  organ  was  played 
in  the  jiraise  service;  linancial  help  was  recei\ed  from  the 
Ladies'  Aid  Society;  baskets  were  passed  by  I  lie  elilcrs  in 
taking  u]>  collections;  the  sa<ramenl  was  administered 
after  services,  and  the  church  had  self-goveinment.    All  this 


94  Till:  (IN  IL   LAW    ANh  '11  ill  (ill   i:<|| 

<(tiiroriiic<|  Willi  the  pi-iicl  i<('s  of  llic  ("hiislijiii  ( 'liiii-cli.  Its 
rrrvil  wiis  Ilic  New  Tt'stainciil.  rpoii  tlio  julveiit  of  a  new 
jiaslor  ;ill  was  cliaiijicd.  The  I  nlcnial  ioiial  Suii<lay  School 
leaves  and  (lie  orjj;aii  were  deiioniiced  as  iiistniiiieiils  of  I  lie 
devil.  The  Sunday  school  was  altaiidoned  as  not  authorized 
l»y  the  S(ri|)tnres,  thoujih  the  youth  were  sometimes  tan;;ht 
from  the  liihie.  The  orj^an  was  relejjated  to  the  woodhouse. 
Receiving  contributions  from  outsiders  was  condemned,  and 
voluntary  offering  made  only  by  dei)Ositing  the  gifts  on  a 
stand  before  the  altar.  The  rule  of  the  elders  was  pro- 
claimed. Its  belief  in  the  use  of  the  organ,  in  the  Sunday 
school,  the  rule  of  the  elders,  and  the  methods  of  giving  were 
made  tests  of  fealty.  In  December,  1804,  for  the  purpose  of 
settling  misunderstandings  as  to  belief,  all  persons  willing 
to  take  the  New  Testament  as  a  guide  of  faith  were  invited 
to  take  the  front  seats.  Subsecjuently  three  persons  who 
refused  to  accept  the  new  teaching  were  expelled  without 
trial  of  specific  charges.  The  persons  making  and  favoring 
the  innovations  were  not  entitled  to  the  possession  of  the 
church  proi)erty,  the  court  observing  that  the  property  must 
be  held  in  sacred  trust  for  the  promulgation  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  New  Testament  according  to  the  generally 
accepted  interpretation  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  Christian 
Church  V  Carjienter,  108  la.  (547. 

Church  of  Christ.  Land  was  conveyed  by  deed  to  three 
persons  as  trustees  for  the  Christian  Church.  It  was  held 
that  a  court  of  equity  should  enforce  the  trust  in  favor  of 
the  Church  of  Christ,  it  appearing  that  the  Church  of  Christ 
was  legally  incori)orated,  and  that  the  persons  named  as 
trustees  in  the  deed  were  in  fact  the  trustees  of  the  Church 
of  Christ,  and  there  was  no  proof  that  there  was  any  legally 
organized  or  unorganized  religious  society  or  church  having 
the  name  "The  Christian  Church"  at  the  time  the  deed  was 
made,  nor  one  thereafter  legally  organized.  Church  of 
Christ  V  (Miristian  (^hurch,  Hammond,  193  111.  144. 

Division,  Effect  on  Property  Rights.  The  society  purchased 
land  on  which  a  house  of  worship  was  erected.     Some  time 


CUKISTIAX  ClirUCII  IK") 

about  1885  the  (leiiomiuatioii  in  Texas  hocaine  diviiled  into 
two  factions,  known  as  the  J'ro^ivssive  and  the  I'^irni 
Foundation  factious,  ditteriug  ou  the  question  relatinj;  to 
baptism  with  some  other  minor  differences. 

In  Seittenibei',  1S!H,  thei-(;  was  a  sei)ai'ation  in  the  IckmI 
(hni'ch,  a  large  majority  adhering  to  the  so-called  Firm 
l"\)undation  Faction.  The  minoi-ity  (»l)tained  a  charter,  and 
lironght  an  action  to  recover  the  jiroperty  which  was  held 
by  the  nmjority  faction,  under  the  claim  that  it  was  the 
trne  Christian  Chnrch  at  that  place.  It  was  held  that  the 
])laint  ill's  re]»resented  the  original  soeicty  and  the  docti'ines 
of  the  Christian  Clinicli  at  the  time  the  ]»ro|>erty  was 
accpiired,  and  still  a<lhered  to  the  faith  and  ]»i'a(tice  of  that 
denomination  ;  that  the  doctrines  of  the  faction  known  as 
the  Firm  Foundation  Faction  constituted  a  wide  <leparture 
from  the  original  articles  of  faith,  and  that  the  ])laintiffs, 
members  of  the  Pi-ogressive  Faction,  who  still  adhered  to 
the  doctrines  of  the  original  society,  were  entitled  to  the 
possession  of  the  church  ]u-operty.  Feace  v  First  Clirislian 
Church,  McCiregor,  20  Tex.  Civ.  App.  85. 

Incorporation,  Effect.  The  society  was  organized  in  18().">, 
au<l  continued  in  its  unincorporated  condition  until  187;>, 
when  a  majority  voted  to  incorporate.  It  was,  accordingly, 
incorporated  under  the  laws  of  Missouri.  I'rioi-  to  the  in- 
corporation the  treasurer  had  dei»()sited  chnrch  funds  in  a 
savings  institution.  After  the  incorporation  the  clinrcli 
brought  an  action  to  i-ecover  the  aiiioiiiil  of  the  ^Icjiosil. 
The  ]KM'sons  com|»osing  a  minority  of  the  congregation  at  I  lie 
time  of  the  vote  for  incor]»oral  ion,  and  who  had  <leclined 
to  sign  the  jx'tition  t'oi-  the  charier,  joined  in  a  ddcnsc  by 
the  bank  claiming  that  they,  snch  minoiiiy,  consiiinled  the 
i-eal  church  an<l  were  entitled  to  the  property.  It  was  held 
that  the  incor|ioral  ion  was  I'egnhir,  and  lli;il  ail  (lie  iiicni- 
bers  of  the  congregat  ion,  including  tiie  minoiity,  were  bound 
by  it.  That  the  new  corporation  succeeded  to  nil  the  i-iglils 
of  the  foi'uier  unincorpoi'ated  society,  including  llie  owner- 
ship of  the  ceililicate  of  dep(»sil,  of  the  funds  in    liie  hands 


or,         Till':  <'i\  II,  LAW  ANh  'rill-:  cm  kcii 

of  lli<>  s:iviii;4s  iiisl  it  nl  inn,  ;iii(|  :i<-('(»r(liii;;l_v  ili;it  iIm-  cliiirch 
\v;is  cnlilloH  lo  i-ccovrr  llic  <l('|M»si(.  Xoi-lli  St.  Louis  Chris- 
ti.iii  ("liuicli  \  M((h»\v;iii,  (IL*  ,M(>.  I'TM. 

Officers  Constitute  Corporation.  Tlie  Ini.stecs,  deacons,  and 
clmicli  wardfiis  wi-rc  held  lo  coiistllute  a  corporation  for 
liic  puiposc  of  takinj^  and  lioldinji  in  succession  all  real  and 
jHUsonal  estate  <;i\(Mi  to  their  church.  Bean  v  Christian 
Church,  South  Danhuiy,  fil  N.  H.  200. 

Unincorporated  Society.  In  18-4,  a  society  was  formed  con- 
loruiahle  lo  the  rules  and  usages  of  the  denomination  called 
Christians.  The  society  was  not  organized  in  the  manner 
recpiired  ItN'  the  statute  but  the  associates  agreed  to  main- 
tain religious  worship.  The  society  was  received  in  fellow- 
ship with  other  societies  of  the  same  denomination,  and 
maintained  religious  worship.  It  was  held  that  while  the 
society  was  not  organized  as  required  bj'  the  statute,  it  be- 
came an  unincorporated  religious  society,  under  the  rules 
of  the  denomination,  and  as  such  became  entitled  to  take 
and  hold  real  estate,  and  that  it  might  maintain  an  action 
of  trespass  on  its  property.  Christian  Society,  Plymouth  v 
Macomber,  5  Mete.  (Mass.)  155. 


CHRISTIANITY 

Christian  defined,  97. 
Blasphemy,  98. 
England,  98. 
Law  of  the  land,  98. 
Masaachusetts,  99. 
Nation,  99. 
Now  York,  99. 
Ohio,  100. 
Pennsylvania,  100. 
Scope  of  influence,  100. 

Christian  Defined.  Tlic  term  "rin-istians,"  ;is  nso<l  in  lis 
general  sense,  means  tlH)se  \\li()  believe  in  llic  divinity  of 
Christ.  Attorney  Cleneral  v  I  MiiiiniHtnd,  .'!  Dr.  ^i;  War. 
(En,i;-.)   ](;2. 

The  term  ''Christian"  embraces  and  inclndcs  l»(ilh  Koman 
Catholic  and  Protestant  alike;  ;ind  to  be  ol  the  (';ii Indie  or 
Protestant  rtdij»ion,  a  jtcrson  mnst  lirst  l>e  of  tiie  Christian 
religion.     The   grand    sidxlivisions   among   Clirislians   are: 

1.  The  Greek,  or  lOastern  (Miurcli. 

2.  The  Roman  Catholics,  who  ackn(»\\  ledge  tlic  antlnn-ity 
of  the  Pope. 

ti.  The  Protestant,  or  rcrormcd  rlimclics  or  sects,  wlio 
reject  the  anlhoi-ity  of  iIm'  Tope  (  l{(>l»bins.  lu-li^icMis  of  .ill 
Nations). 

A  Ronuin  Catindic  is  a  Chi-islian  wlio  adiiiils  tlie  anllior- 
ity  of  the  Pope;  a  Protestant  is  a  ("iiiisiiau  who  (h-nics  tiiat 
anthorit}'. 

Since  the  days  of  iaitlier,  Iu»m;inists  ami  i'rutfstants  have 
conslitnted,  and  still  constitnlc.  the  t\v<»  grc;il  divisions  cd" 
Christianity  in  western  Mnropc  :ind  .Vmerit;i.  The  conri 
([noted  I'l-om  llic  laicycjoitcdi;!  nf  Ktdi^icius  Know  h-diic.  tlic 
statement    tiuit  •MJic  leiwu  '( 'lirisi  i;in.'  when  nsc<|   in  its  more 

97 


08  TNI':  (IN  II.  LAW    A  M  »  'nil:  cmHiMI 

Ntl'ict,  Mcri|»hir;ii,  :iii<l  llM'(il(»;^i(;il  sense,  denotes  one  who 
ri'silly  lieiicves  the  j,'os|)eI,  inihihes  the  s|»irit,  is  influenced  by 
the  p-:ice  iin<i  ohedieni  t(»  tlie  will  ot  Clirisl";  jind  Ihis  it 
(•nils  the  siicred  :ind  pi-o|>ei-  nse  of  the  woi'd.  It  mentions 
nnother  nse  of  the  \\n\(\  which  it  calls  the  ]M)iitic;il  or  <-oii- 
ventioniil  use,  which  denotes  one  who  assents  to  the  doc- 
trines of  the  i'elijj;ion  of  Christ,  ;ind  who,  beinji;  born  of  (Miris- 
liiin  piirents,  or  in  a  ("luistian  count  I'V,  does  not  ]*roress 
any  olhei-  reli<;ion.  or  belon;;  to  any  other  of  the  divisions 
of  men,  sn«-h  as  .lews,  Mohammedans,  deists,  pagans,  and 
atheists;  or,  as  is  said  in  another  i)art  of  the  article,  Chris- 
tians uKiy  be  consi<lered  as  nominal  and  real. 

The  court  observed  that  the  term  "Christian"  was  ordi- 
narily used  in  the  above  defined  political  and  conventional 
sense  in  constitutions,  statutes,  and  legal  documents,  in 
other  words  as  nominal  Christians.  The  idea  that  any  man, 
however  good,  can  i^roperly  be  called  a  Christian,  who  does 
not  believe  or  assent  to  the  truths  and  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  first  and  foremost  of  all,  to  the  doctrine  that 
Jesus  was  the  Christ,  the  true  Messiah,  the  Christ  of  God,  is 
simjjly  i)rei»osterous.  All  Christians  believe  in  Jesus  Christ 
as  the  true  Messiah,  and  the  Saviour  of  man  ;  in  other  words, 
that  Jesus  Christ  was  just  what  he  claimed  to  be — the 
"Christ  of  God."    Hale  v  Everett,  53  N.  H.  1. 

Blasphemy.  Writing  against  Christianity  is  blasphemy  at 
comnioii  law.     Kex  v  Woolston,  2  Str.   (Eng.)   83-1. 

England.  Christianity  came  in  here  (England)  by  ex- 
ternal spiritual  force,  and  discipline,  was  introduced  as  a 
custom,  and  is  ])art  of  the  law.  Lord  Hale's  MSS.,  cited  in 
Kex  v  Bosworth,  2  Str.  (Eng.)  1113. 

Law  of  the  Land.  The  declaration  that  Christianity  is 
l»art  of  the  law  of  the  land  is  a  summary  descrijttiou  of  an 
existing  and  ever-obvious  condition  of  our  institutions.  We 
are  a  Christian  j)eoi)le  in  so  far  as  we  have  entered  into  the 
spirit  of  Christian  institutions,  and  become  imbued  with 
the  sentiments  and  principles  of  Christianity ;  and  we  can- 
not be  imbued  with  them  and  yet  ])revent  them  from  enter- 


CUIMSTIAMTV  1)0 

iiig  into  and  inthuMuin;;  more  or  less,  all  onr  social  institu- 
tions, customs,  and  relations,  as  well  as  all  our  individual 
modes  of  thinking  and  acting.    Molinej'  v  Clark,  iM;  I'a.  342. 

Massachusetts.  The  jteople  of  Massachusetts,  in  the  frame 
of  their  government,  adopted  Christ ianity  as  the  basis  of 
organized  society.  This  religion  was  found  to  rest  on  the 
basis  of  immortal  truth;  and  to  contain  a  system  of  morals 
adapted  to  man  in  all  possible  ranks  and  conditions,  situa- 
tions and  circumstances.  The  manner  of  its  constitutional 
establishment  was  liberal,  and  consistent  with  the  riglits  of 
conscience  on  religious  subjects.  The  constitution  jirovided 
for  the  public  teaching  of  the  i)recepts  and  maxims  of  the 
religion  of  Protestant  Christians  to  all  the  i)eoi»le,  and  it 
was  made  the  right  and  duty  of  all  cori)()rate  religious 
societies  to  elect  and  support  a  i)ublic  I'rotestant  teacher 
of  piety,  religion,  and  morality.  Barnes  v  First  Parish, 
Falmouth,  G  Mass.  401. 

Nation.  Our  nation  and  the  States  com})Osing  it  are 
Christian  in  jtolicy  to  the  extent  of  endu-acing  and  adopting 
the  moral  tenets  of  Christianity  as  furnishing  a  sound  basis 
upon  which  the  moi-al  obligations  of  the  citizen  to  society 
and  the  State  may  be  establisluMl.  District  of  Colundiia  v 
Kobinson,  30  A])p.  1).  C.  28:}. 

New  York.  Christianity  is,  in  a  qualified  sense,  a  i»art  of 
the  common  law  of  New  York,  not  to  the  extent  that  would 
authorize  a  comi»ulsory  conformity  in  faith  and  praclic*'  to 
the  creed  and  formula  or  \\drsbi|»  (»r  any  sei*t  or  denomina- 
tion, or  even  in  those  matters  of  doctrine  and  worshij)  com- 
mon to  all  denominations  styling  tliemselvi's  Cliiistian,  but 
to  the  extent  that  entillcs  the  (Mirislian  religion  and  its 
ordinances  to  resjtect  and  ]»roteciion,  as  the  acknowledged 
religion  of  the  people.  "Christianity  is  not  the  legal  i-eli- 
gion  of  the  State  as  established  by  law.  II  it  were,  it  would 
be  a  civil  or  jiolitical  institnlion,  which  it  is  not  ;  but  this  is 
not  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  it  is  in  elfect,  and  ever 
has  been,  the  i-eligion  of  the  pt'o|ile."  Lindenmnller  v 
People,::::  Parb.  iX.  V.j  5 IS. 


Ktii  TJIi:  (IN  IL   LAW   A\l>  Tin:  CHIKCH 

Ohio.  ( 'liiisliMiiil.v  is  it  pail  ol'  llu'  coiimiou  law  of  Kiig- 
laiid,  Imt  niMlcr  lli<-  const ihil ion  of  Ohio  neither  Clirisliaii- 
ily  nor  any  other  systrni  of  iclijiion  is  a  part  <jf  the  hiw  of 
the  Stale.  The  statement  tliat  all  religions  are  tolerated  in 
Ohio  is  not  strietly  accnrate.  Mnch  less  accurate  is  it  to  say 
that  one  religion  is  a  part  of  the  law,  and  all  others  only 
tolerated.  There  is  no  imion  of  cluireh  and  state,  nor  has 
th(?  governinent  excr  licen  Nested  with  aullioiity  to  enforce 
any  religions  ohservanee  sinii>ly  because  it  is  religions.  The 
IK)wer  to  make  the  law  rests  in  the  legislative  control  over 
things  temporal  and  not  over  things  spiritual.  No  power 
over  things  merely  spiritual  has  ever  been  delegated  to  the 
government.    Bloom  v  Kichards,  2  Ohio  St.  387. 

Pennsylvania.  Christianity  is  and  always  has  been  a  part 
of  the  ecnnmon  law  of  Pennsylvania;  Christianity  without 
the  sj)iritual  artillery  of  European  countries;  for  this  Chri.s- 
tianitj'  was  one  of  the  considerations  of  the  royal  charter 
and  the  very  basis  of  its  great  founder,  William  I'enn ;  not 
Christianity  founded  on  any  particular  religious  tenets;  not 
Christianity  with  an  established  church,  and  tithes,  and 
spiritual  courls,  but  Christianity  with  liberty  of  conscience 
to  all  men.  Updegra])h  v  Commonwealth,  11  S.  and  R. 
(Pa.)  :iJ)4. 

Christianity,  as  it  is  inculcated  in  the  Scriptures,  is  a 
part  of  our  common  law.  It  has  at  all  times  been  so  under- 
stood and  believed  not  only  by  divines,  but  also  by  our 
statesmen  and  people.  It  has  been  so  declared  by  our  high- 
est judicial  tribuimls.  Commonwealth  v  Sigman,  2  Clark 
(Pa.)  3G. 

Scope  of  Influence.  Christianity,  though  an  essential  ele- 
ment of  the  conservatism,  and  a  great  moral  power  in  the 
State,  should  yet  only  work  by  love,  and  inscribe  the  laws 
of  liberty  and  light  on  the  heart;  and  the  civil  government 
has  no  just  or  lawful  power  over  the  conscience,  or  faith 
or  forms  of  worship  or  church  creeds  or  discipline  as  long 
as  their  fruits  neither  unhinge  civil  supremacy,  demoralize 
society,  nor  disturb  its  j)eace  or  security. 


CHRISTIANITY  101 

The  political  goverumeut  is  fouuded  on  the  civil  cousti- 
tution;  the  ecclesiastical  on  the  Bible;  but  the  Bible  and 
the  constitution  harmonize  in  aim  and  in  si)ii'it;  and  reli- 
gion and  politics  shuuhl  go  hand  in  hand  togctlier,  each 
equally  free,  and  neither  presuming  to  control  the  other  in 
its  legitimate  sphere.  This  is  the  true,  and  only  true,  illus- 
tration of  the  moik'ni  maxim  that  church  and  state  should 
be  kept  separate.  It  is  the  vital  principle  of  both  civil  and 
religious  liberty,  and  its  universal  prevalence  woidd  secure 
liberty,  purify  religion,  an<l  juomote  tiie  welfare  of  man- 
kind.   Gartin  V  I'enick,  5  Bush.  (Ky.)  110. 


CHRISTIAN  MISSIONARY  SOCIETY 

This  society  was  uiiiiicorixjrated,  but  was  coiiiinoiily 
i<iH>\Mi  as  llie  Kentucky  Christian  Missionary  Convention, 
This  h()«ly  rejj^nlarly  and  annually  met,  and  jtrovided  means 
and  plans  to  cai-ry  on  Cln-istian  missionary  work.  A  be- 
quest to  the  society  was  sustained  in  Chambers  v  Higgins, 
l!>  S.  W.  (Ky.)  436. 


102 


CHRISTIAN  SCIENCE 

Described,  103. 

Expulsion  of  members,  103. 

Healer,  knowledge  roquiied,  103. 

Medical  attendance,  religious  belief,  103. 

Mis.souri  constitution,  104. 

Pemisylvania  consititution,  101. 

Sunday  school  treasurer,  lOo. 

Described.  Christian  Science  entirely  excludes  drugs 
and  all  material  methods  of  treatment,  and  relies  solely 
upon  prayer  as  a  means  for  the  relief  or  cure  of  the  sick. 
State  V  Marble,  72  Ohio  21 :  It  was  held  in  this  case  that  the 
giving  of  Christian  Science  treatment  for  a  fee  for  the  cure 
of  disease  was  practicing  medicine  within  the  meaning  of 
the  Ohio  statute,  and  that  the  statute  nuiking  it  a  mis<le- 
meanor  to  give  such  treatment  for  a  fee  was  not  an  interfer- 
ence with  the  rights  of  conscience  and  worship,  secured  by 
the  bill  of  rights;  see  also  People  v  Cole,  1G3  A.  D.  (N.  Y.) 
292. 

Expulsion  of  Members.  In  IToIcombe  v  Leavitt,  124  N.  Y.  S. 
980,  an  injunction  was  granted  against  the  expulsion  of 
certain  mendjers  of  the  society  who  had  i)rop<)se«l  by-laws 
for  its  government,  and  who,  if  arl)itrarily  expelled,  would 
be  dejjrived  of  jtroperly  rights. 

Healer,  Knowledge  Required.  One  who  holds  himself  out  as 
a  Christian  Science  healer,  and  is  employed  to  treat  di.sease 
according  to  the  methods  adoj)ted  by  such  j)ractitioners,  is 
only  required  to  j)Ossess  the  knowledge,  and  to  exercise  the 
care  and  skill  of  the  ordinary  ('lii-isti;in  Scientist.  Spend 
v  Tomlinson,  7.'^  N.  H.  4(1. 

Medical  Attendance,  Religious  Belief.  See  Slntc  v  c'Immi- 
owetli,   ir»:j   hid.  IM   I'or  iiiitliorilics  on  the  ciVcct   <ir  i-('lit;ions 

103 


KM  'rili:  <l\  IL   LAW  AM)  '1111:  cmKrii 

ix'licr  iis  ;i  (Icrciisc  l»V  |t;irfiils  lor  ;ill(';;c(l  ii<';^lc(|  Id  Jil-uvide 
lii(Mlic;il  ;it  Iciiil.iiic*'  for  sick  cli i Mrcii,  ;is  Tccpiirctl  l»y  law. 

Missouri  Constitution.  Jn  Kc  SI.  Louis  Iii.st.  ol"  Clirislian 
Science,  I'T  Mo.  App.  i>'->'-'>,  tlie  coiirl  denied  an  ai»plic;iti(>n 
for  a  charter  on  the  ground  lliat  it  would  l»e  a  viohition  of 
the  j)rovision  of  tlu;  const itui ion  of  Misso\iri,  whicli  dechired 
that  no  religious  coi-|)oriitiou  can  be  established  in  this 
State,  except  such  as  may  be  created  under  a  general  law 
for  the  jiurpose  only  of  holding  tlie  title  to  such  real  estate 
as  uuiy  be  ])res(i-ibed  by  hiw  for  church  edilices;  that  the 
proi»osed  inslituti(»n  was  intended  to  propagate  a  religious 
belief,  and  that  it  would,  therefore,  become  a  religious  cor- 
poration witiiin  the  tei-ms  of  its  intended  charter;  also 
that  the  proposed  charter  would  erect  a  business  corpora- 
tion for  i)ecuniary  profits  contrary  to  certain  statutory 
provisions. 

Pennsylvania  Constitution.  Considering  an  application  for 
a  charter  by  the  First  (Jhurch  of  Christ  Scientist,  it  was 
held  in  J'ennsylvania  that  if  the  purpose  of  the  proposed  cor- 
poraticm  were  onlj'  to  inculcate  a  creed  or  to  promulgate  a 
form  of  worship,  no  question  could  arise,  because  under  the 
constitution  of  J'ennsyivania  private  belief  is  beyond  public 
control,  and  there  can  be  no  interference  with  the  right  of 
con.science.  The  maintenance  of  health  and  the  cure  of 
disease  occupies  a  large  si>ace  in  the  faith  of  the  society. 
The  students  of  the  book  have  patients  who  are  to  be  treated 
according  to  the  method  taught.  The  treatment  extends  to 
the  most  serious  and  fatal  of  diseases — rheumatism,  scro- 
fula, cancer,  smallpox,  and  consumption.  The  patients, 
young  and  old,  are  to  be  treated  for  a  compensation  to  be 
]>aid  to  those  who  work  the  beneticent  results.  The  court 
said  that  what  was  proposed  was  more  than  a  church,  since 
there  is  besides  to  be  established  a  system  for  the  treatment 
of  disease,  to  be  carried  into  effect  by  persons  trained  for 
the  purpose,  who  may  receive  compensation  for  their  serv- 
ices. The  rennsylvania  statute  of  1S77  prohibited  persons 
from  ju'act icing  medicine  who  had  not  received  a  regular 


CHKliSTlAN  SCIENCE  105 

diploma  from  a  chartered  medical  school.  To  grant  this 
charter  would  be  to  sanction  a  system  of  dealing  with  dis- 
ease totally  at  variance  with  any  contcniplatod  by  tlie  act  of 
1877,  and  dift'erent  from  any  taught  in  a  chartered  medical 
school.  The  court  declined  to  grant  the  charter.  Applica- 
tion of  First  Cluircli  of  Christ  Scientist,  0  I'a.  Dist.  7-1."'). 

A  similar  situation  was  presented  by  tlie  a])plication  of 
First  Church  of  Christ  Scientist,  205  I'a.  543,  where  the 
status  of  Christian  Science  was  again  considered  on  an 
application  for  a  charter  for  the  estal)lishnient  of  a  phice 
for  the  support  of  public  worship,  and  to  ])reach  the  gospel 
according  to  the  docti-ines  of  Christ  .Jesus,  as  found  in  the 
Bible  and  the  Cliristian  Science  textbook,  Science  and 
Health,  with  Key  to  tlie  Scriptures :  by  Mary  Baker  G.  Eddy. 
It  apjieared  that  tlie  method  to  be  pursued  by  these  healers 
in  curing  the  sick  is  simply  and  solely  by  inaudible  prayer, 
whether  in  the  presence  of  the  sick  or  at  a  distance,  being 
immaterial.  That  to  qualify  for  the  practice  of  healing 
disease  according  to  this  method  nothing  was  necessary 
except  the  study  of  the  system  taught  in  Mrs.  Eddy's  boolc, 
no  knowledge  of  anatomy,  ])liysiology,  pathology  or  hygiene 
being  require<l,  the  fundamental  ])riii(ii»l('  of  the  teaching  of 
Mrs.  Eddy  being  that  what  is  icrmcd  disease  has  no  real 
existence;  that  sickness,  sin,  and  death  are  unknown  to 
truth,  and  should  not  be  recognized  by  man  as  a  reality. 
The  charter  was  refused. 

Sunday  School  Treasurer.  In  First  Church  of  (^hrist  Scien- 
tist in  Bulfab).  X.  V.  v  Sdireck.  70  Misc.  (X.  V.)  (;i.">;  1l»7 
N.  Y.  Supp.  174,  it  was  held  llial  I  lie  Ireasurer  of  a  Sunday 
school  connected  with  a  cor|»orat  ion  was  res|»onsil)le  to  llie 
corporation  for  funds  collected  for  the  church  organ. 


CHURCH 

Defined,  lOG. 

DcfiiKHi,  universal  and  i)articalar,  108. 

Autliority  over  nirnilx'r.s,  108. 

( 'lunch  i)urposo,  109. 

Cliurch,  separate  from  society,  109. 

C'liissifiealion,  109. 

Con>a"egationaI,  defined,  109. 

Consecration,  110. 

Creed  and  polity,  110. 

Discipline,  subordinate  to  State  law,  110. 

Division,  110. 

Doctrinal  controversy.  111. 

Elements,  112. 

Expulsion  of  members,  112. 

Extinct,  what  constitutes,  112. 

House  of  worship,  112. 

Incorporation,  effect,  113. 

Independence,  113. 

Lecture  room,  113. 

Legislative  power,  113. 

Liquor  tax  law,  114. 

Majority,  power,  114. 

Merger,  115. 

Minister,  liabihty  for  libel,  115. 

Organic  law,  115. 

Property,  beneficiaries,  116. 

Relation  to  congregation,  116. 

Rules  and  regulations,  effect,  116. 

Service,  116. 

Sewing  circle,  117. 

Temporalities  defined,  117. 

Territorial  limitation,  117. 

Union,  117. 

Virginia,  cannot  be  incorporated,  117. 

Who  constitute,  117. 

Defined.     The  Clnireh  consists  of  an  indefinite  nnniber  of 
peison.s,  of  one  or  both  sexes,  who  have  made  a  pnblic  pro- 

106 


CHURCH  107 

fession  of  religion ;  and  who  are  associated  togetlier  by  a 
covenant  of  church  fellowship,  for  the  i)urpose  of  celebrat- 
ing the  sacraments,  and  watching  over  the  spiritual  welfare 
of  each  other.  Baptist  Church,  Hartford  v  WiHierell,  3 
Paige  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  2!)(>. 

"The  church,  in  the  ordinary  acceptation  of  the  word,  is 
a  voluntarj^  association  of  its  members,  united  together  by 
covenant  or  agreement,  for  the  purpose  of  niaintaiuiiig  the 
public  worship  of  God,  observing  the  ordinances  of  his  house, 
the  promotion  of  the  s])ii'itualify  of  its  mcmbershiji,  and  rlie 
spirit  of  divine  truth  among  others  as  they  understand  and 
•teach  it.  It  is  purely  voluntary,  and  is  not  a  corporation 
nor  a  quasi  corporation."  Hundh\v  v  Collins,  131  Ala.  234; 
see  also  Re  Douglass's  Estate,  143  N.  W.  (Neb.)  IMJI). 

The  word  "church"  is  understood  to  mean  a  number  of 
Christian  persons,  agreeing  in  their  faith,  usually  assem- 
bling together  at  one  place,  for  purposes  of  worshij),  submit- 
ting to  its  ordinances,  and  receiving  its  sacraments.  This 
is  entirely  distinct  from  tlie  meaning  of  the  word  "cliurcli" 
as  applied  to  a  corporation.  In  the  forujer  sense  of  the 
word,  many  persons  are  usually  members  of  the  church — 
and  most  commonly  a  large  majority,  ^^'llo  neither  are,  nor 
can  be  members  of  the  corporation — married  women,  in- 
fants, and  slaves.  When  persons  are  incorporated  by  the 
name  of  diurch  this  can  be  regarded  only  as  a  name  of 
designation — or  at  most,  as  indicated  when  proj)erty  is 
given  to  them,  the  trusts  ui)on  which  it  is  given.  Wilson  v 
Presbyterian  Church,  John's  Island,  -  Rich.  Eq.  (S.  (\) 
192.  See  also  St.  Andrews  Church,  v  Schaunessy,  (l.'I  Xeb. 
792. 

It  is  a  matter  of  common  observation  that  the  teinis 
"church"  and  "society"  are  popularly  used  to  express  the 
same  thing,  namely,  a  religious  body  organized  to  sustain 
public  worshi]).  Greenland  Church  and  Congrt'gational 
Society  v  Hatch,  4S  N.  H.  :{!>::. 

The  term  "church"  imports  an  organization  for  religions 
purposes,  and  property  given  to  it  by  name,  in  tiie  absence 


lOS  Tin:  CINIL    l-AW   AMI  THi:  CIW   \U'\l 

(»r  iill  (Ici  hir.il  ions  oT  liiisl  oi-  use.  riinsi,  l.y  ixMcssjiiy  iiiij)!!- 
ciilion.  Im'  iiil('iHlc(l  In  Im'  ^i\('ii  to  pioiMolc  llic  ])iiri loses  for 
which  a  chni-ih  is  insjilnlcd  ;  Ilic  most  ]>roiiiiiuMit  of  wliich 
is  the  i)ublic  worship  of  God.    Baker  v  Fales,  IG  Mass.  488, 

Any  society  claiming  to  be  a  church,  and  engaged  in  the 
l.iwfiil  ]H'omolion  or  defense  of  religion,  is  a  legal  churcli. 
And,  lliere  being  no  law  requiring  in  its  fommtion  or  con- 
tinued existence  any  connection  \\itli  any  other  society, 
civil  oi-  ecclesiastical,  incorporated  or  unincorporated,  it 
m;iy  be  forme<l  and  it  may  exist  without  any  such  connec- 
tion.    Holt  V  Downs,  58  N.  H.  170. 

The  identity  of  a  religious  community  described  as  a 
church  consists  in  the  identity  of  its  doctrines,  creeds,  con- 
fessions, formularies  and  tests.  General  Assembly,  Free 
Church  of  Scotland  v  Overtouu  (1004),  Law  Hep.  App. 
Cases,  (F>ng. )  HI."). 

Defined,  Universal  and  Particular.  A  universal  church  con- 
sists of  those  persons,  in  every  nation,  together  with  their 
children,  who  make  profession  of  the  holy  religion  of  Christ, 
and  of  submission  to  his  laws;  and  as  this  immense  multi- 
tude cannot  meet  together  in  one  place  to  hold  communion 
or  to  worshij)  God,  it  is  reasonable,  and  warranted  by  Scrip- 
ture exam]»le,  that  they  should  be  divided  into  many  partic- 
ular churches.  A  particular  church  consists  of  a  number  of 
])rofessing  Christians,  with  their  offspring,  voluntarily  asso- 
ciated together  for  divine  wor.shi])  and  godly  living  agree- 
ably to  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  submitting  to  a  certain 
form  of  government.  First  T*resby.  Church,  Louisville  v  Wil- 
son, 14  Bush.  (Ky.  I  252. 

Authority  over  Members.  Churches  have  authority  to  deal 
with  their  members  for  immoral  or  scandalous  conduct; 
and  for  that  juirj^ose,  to  hear  complaints,  to  take  evidence, 
and  to  decide,  and  upon  conviction,  to  administer  proper 
})unishment  by  way  of  rebuke,  censure.  sus|>eusion,  and  ex- 
communication. To  this  jurisdiction,  every  member,  by 
entering  into  the  church  covenant,  submits  and  is  bound  by 
his  consent. 


CHURCH  109 

The  proceediuj^s  ol"  the  climcli  aie  (juasi  judicial  and  theic- 
fore  those  who  coinphiiii,  or  give  testiinoii}',  or  act  and  vote, 
or  pronounce  tlie  result,  orally  or  in  writing,  acting  in  good 
faith,  and  within  the  scope  of  the  authority  conferred  by 
this  limited  jurisdiction,  and  not  falsely  or  colorably,  mak- 
ing such  proceedings  a  pretense  for  covering  an  intended 
scandal,  are  protected  by  law.  FarnswoTth  v  Storrs.  5 
Cush.  (Mass.)  412. 

Church  Purpose.  A  lot  was  conveyed  to  the  society  by 
deed  containing  a  condition  that  the  proi)erty  should  be 
used  for  the  purjjose  of  erecting  thereon  a  parsonage  "or 
Church  ])uri»ose."  A  parsonage  was  not  erected,  but  the  lot 
was  used  for  hitching  teams  during  service  in  the  church, 
which  was  situated  on  an  adjoining  lot.  This  use  was  held 
to  be  a  church  purpose  within  the  condition  in  llie  deed. 
Bailey  v  Wells,  S2  la.  VM. 

Church,  Separate  from  Society.  "A  cluucli.  separate  Ironi 
the  society  with  which  it  is  connected,  has  not  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  a  corjtoration.  It  is,  liowever,  a  body 
having  a  distinct  existence  and  cliaractcr,  in  our  ecclesias- 
tical history  and  usages,  and  as  such  is  recognized  hy  the 
law."    Anderson  v  Brock,  8  Me.  24:'.. 

Classification.  The  Kpisc()i)al  Churdi  is  uionar*  hical,  I  lie 
Presbyterian  aristocratical,  ;ind  the  Congregational  demo- 
cratical.  Presbyterians  and  Congrcgationalists  were  dis- 
tinct sects  and  formed  se})arate  religious  societies  at  the 
time  the  constitution  was  made.  All  tlie  Protestant 
churches  set  out  together,  but  they  parted  on  the  road.  They 
fell  out  by  the  way.  And  yet,  if  we  coolly  and  imi>artially 
examine  the  j)oinls  on  which  they  ditlVred  and  separatetl, 
they  will  be  found  lew  in  ninnber  and  trilling  in  anu)unt. 
Muzzy  V  Wilkins,  Smith's  N.  11.  Kep.  1. 

Congregational,  Defined.  A  church  is  understood  among 
those  whose  polity  is  congregational  or  independent,  lo  be  a 
body  of  persons  associated  t(>gether  for  the  purpose  of  nuiin- 
taining  Christian  worship  and  ordinances.  A  religious  body 
is  a  body  of  pejsoiis  associated  together  for  the  purpose  of 


Ill)  Tin;  (M\ll.   LAW   AND  Till:  CI  IT  KM  "II 

in;iiiil;iiiiiii}i  rcli^iioiis  woi-sliip  only,  oiiiitliiiii  tiic  sjicra- 
iiM'iits.  A  clmi'cli  :iim1  society  iiic  often  niiilfd  in  niaiiilain- 
\\\<X  worsliip,  ;in<I  in  sncli  cases  the  society  commonly  owns 
the  pioperly  :in<l  nuikes  the  jx-cnjiiary  conti'act  with  the 
minisler.  Chnrches  ;ire  not  cor])orate(|  bodies,  and  com- 
monly have  no  occasion  for  the  exercise  of  corporate  powers. 
J>y  the  Afassaclnisetts  statutes  their  oftlcers  have  sufficient 
corporated  powers  to  euiihle  tlieni  to  ho]«l  any  i)roperty  that 
ni;iy  be  jfiven  to  theii'  cliiiicli.  Silsl)y  v  l>;n-low,  ]i\  (Ii-ay 
(Mass.)  :?2!>. 

Consecration.  If  a  church  is  repaired  without  being  totally 
destroyed  or  i)ulled  down,  some  i)arts  being  left  undisturbed, 
it  does  not  ueed  to  be  reconsecrated;  and  this  rule  jjrobably 
a]ii)lied  even  if  the  church  should  be  entirely  rebuilt  on  the 
former  foundations,  especially  if  the  re))airs  or  reconstruc- 
tion be  ordered  by  the  church  authorities.  Parker  v  Leach 
12.1ur.  N.  S.  (Eng.)  <)11. 

Creed  and  Polity.  The  orgauizatiou  of  a  denominational 
body  or  church  involves  the  adoption  of  a  religious  creed 
and  an  ecclesiastical  polity.  Adherence  to  a  particular 
body  requires,  therefore,  adherence  to  both  the  creed  and 
the  polity.  To  abandon  or  repudiate  either,  is  to  abandon 
or  secede  from  the  body  whose  authority  is  thus  disregarded. 
Krecker  v  Sliirey,  1(13  Pa.  58-1. 

Discipline,  Subordinate  to  State  Law.  In  the  matter  of  the 
]»etiti()n  of  tlie  Thii<l  ^lethodist  l^jtiscopal  Church  in  the 
City  of  Brooklyn.  (IT  Ilun.  (N.  Y.  i  SG,  an  order  dissolving 
the  corporation  was  sustained,  although  not  made  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  obligation  of  the  I)isci])line  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church.  "No  church  Discipline  can  super- 
sede the  law  of  the  State." 

So  far  as  the  canons  of  the  church  (Roman  Catholic)  are 
in  conflict  with  the  law  of  the  land,  they  must  yield  to  the 
latter;  but  when  they  do  not  so  conflict  they  must  prevail. 
Ryan  v  Dunzilla,  SO  Atl.  (Pa.)  1080. 

Division.  Property  (communion  plate)  was  given  to  this 
society    for   the  use  of  th(>   churcli.   witliout   any   parochial 


CHITKCH  111 

condition,  liniitjitioii,  oi-  tnisl.  The  dciicons  of  I  lie  society 
were  a  coi-itoration  I'oi-  llu-  itiir]K)S('  of  mkiiij;  and  iMtlding 
pi'ojterty,  and  lliev  rcccMved  tlic  inoiicrly  in  (|uc'sti<jn  for 
tlie  nse  of  tlie  clnii-cli.  The  cluircli  was  tiie  beneliciary.  By 
a  division  of  the  cliuich  two  conj^regations  were  formed, 
eacli  claimin«i  to  he  the  orij;inal.  The  defendant's  party 
witlidrew  from  the  ])arish  in  1S7<»  an<l  afterwaid  iiad  con- 
nection with  it.  The  jthiintilf's  ])arty  adhered  to  the  parish 
and  claimed  to  be  tlie  trne  churcli.  Tiie  |»laini ill's  party  was 
held  to  rei)resent  the  original  chnrch,  an<l  was,  tiierefore, 
entitled  to  the  possession  of  the  i)roperty  in  dispute.  Uolt 
V  Downs.  58  N.  TT.  170. 

Doctrinal  Controversy.  One  of  the  j;reat  facts  standing  out 
in  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church  is  that  in  its  long 
life  many  controversies  as  to  doctrine  ami  ceremonial  have 
arisen,  and  there  have  been  manj-  divisions.  While  the 
apostles  were  yet  alive  a  serious  question  arose  concerning 
the  necessity  of  continnino  as  a  jKirt  <)f  the  Christian  system 
a  certain  Jewish  rite.  It  was  a  question  so  grave  tliat  it 
was  carried  for  settlement  to  the  churcli  at  Jerusalem,  and 
was  there  considered  by  the  a])ostles  and  elders,  and  dis- 
cussed and  disi)osed  of  in  the  presence  of  the  congregation. 
A  decision  was  rendered  which  was  transmitted,  for  the 
purpo.se  of  quieting  the  controver.sy.  to  all  of  the  churches, 
to  which  it  was  deemed  necessary  to  send  it  (.\cts  l."ii.  In 
the  succeeding  centuries  numerous  controversies  ar(».se  over 
matters  of  doctrine  and  discipline  which  were  .settleil  by 
church  councils,  liy  means  of  these  councils  serious  divi- 
sions were  prevented  until  the  gi-eat  Keforniaiion  of  the 
sixteenth  centni-y,  with  the  exceiilion  of  the  division  between 
the  Eastern  and  the  Western  chnrches.  which  occurred  A.  D. 
1054,  as  a  result  of  controversies  which  had  proceeded  from 
time  to  time  during  several  centui-ies. 

Numerous  etforts  ha\('  been  made  in  c»»mparat  ively  recent 
years  by  various  brancln's  of  the  I'roteslanl  disision  of  ilie 
church  for  union  among  themselves.  Landi'iih  \  lludgins, 
121  Tenn.  5uG. 


Ill'        'I'm:  ri\  II.  LAW  ANh  riii;  (iii  i:ni 

Elements.  An  iii(<>r|M»i:ilc(|  clnirrli  is  coinitoscd  of  two 
(listincl  cIciiicMls.  iiiiiiii'ly,  tiic  clmrrli  projxT,  us  distiii- 
<,niisli('«|  from  IIm>  ciifilv  crenlrd  hy  I  he  act  of  incorporal ion  ; 
the  coriioi-alion  itself,  wliicli  lias  i-clation  only  io  llic  tcni- 
pornlitii's  of  llic  institution,  'i'lic  pniiiosf  of  llic  incoi-pora- 
tioii  of  a  rliiircli  is  to  a<<iiiir('  an<l  care  for  tin*  i»rop('i-ty 
lIuMTof.  ("liristiaii  (Miurcli,  Iluntsville  v  Soniinci-,  14I>  Ala. 
lir.,  also  Disnnikcs  v  Stale,  r.S  So.   (Ala.)   11)5. 

Expulsion  of  Members.  A  clnii-cli  is  coinjxjsed  of  tlio.se  who 
have  iiiiite<l  (ojiethci'  lor  ecclesiast ical  iclalion  and  ])ur]io.se.s, 
and  for  spii-ihi.il  iinpiovenienl.  Tiiis  body  is  a  voluntary 
association,  liaviii^  power  to  adojtt  its  own  i-ules  for  admis- 
sion and  disci|»line,  and  administer  them  in  its  o\\n  way. 
independent  of  any  control  by  the  courts,  while  free  from 
an  intention  to  injure  its  niemhers  or  tho.se  belongini;  to  it. 

A  resolution  passed  by  the  church  as  above  deftned  for  the 
juirpose  of  excluding  a  member  from  the  church  and  the 
spii'itnal  jirivilej^es  enjoye<l  by  him  is  ettectmil  for  the  ]>ur- 
pose  inten«le<l,  while  if  passed  by  the  corporation  for  the 
pill  pose  of  depriving  him  of  the  privileges  secured  to  corpor- 
ators by  the  Statute  it  is  a  mere  nullity.  People  ex  rel 
Dilcher  v  (Jerman  Tnited  Kvang.  Church,  5o  N.  Y.  103. 

Extinct,  What  Constitutes.  The  facts  which  constitute 
extinction  are  ]ilainly  defined  in  sec.  IC  of  the  New  York 
Keligious  Corporations  Law,  namely,  "If  it  has  failed  for 
two  consecutive  years  next  prior  thereto  to  maintain  reli- 
iiious  services  accordinji'  to  the  discipline,  customs,  and 
usages  of  such  governing  body,  or  has  had  less  than  thirteen 
resident  attending  members  paying  annual  pew  rent,  or 
making  annual  contribution  toward  its  sup]>ort.'''  The  fail- 
ure to  maintain  religious  services  therein  mentioned  does 
not  mean  an  enforced  failure  due  to  the  mandate  of  the 
presbytery  it.self.  It  ini])lies,  rather,  the  inability  to  carry 
on  the  ordinary  services  by  reason  of  diminished  income  and 
attendance  and  similar  causes.  Westminster  Church  v 
rrcsbytciy  of  New  Vmk.  I'll  X.  V.  L»14. 

House  of  Woi-ship.     Chrislianity   is  held   to  be  a  part   of 


CHL'Rf'H  lin 

the  toimnuu  law,  and  Sir  Kdwaiil  (."uke  desigiiales  a  build- 
ing intended  for  the  celebration  of  its  rites  as  the  "man- 
sion house  of  (iod."  In  tliis  lie  had  the  authority  of  the 
Saviour,  who  designated  the  temple  as  "His  Father's  house." 
Beam  v  First  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Lancaster,  Pa., 
3  I*a.  L.  J.  Kep.  :u:\. 

Incorporation,  Effect.  When  a  churcli  has  been  incorpor- 
ated the  regulations  and  ( iistonis  of  the  coninuinion  to  which 
it  belongs  regarding  tlic  dis]»osition  of  secular  business  will 
be  respected  by  the  courts  as  fai-  as  possible;  and  if  the 
mode  of  government  in  force  in  the  denominalion  at  large 
is  not  b}'  congregations,  but  by  superior  clerical  personages, 
assemblies,  synods,  councils,  or  consistories,  the  authority 
of  these  will  not  be  displaced  if  it  can  be  upheld  consistently 
with  the  laws  of  the  sovereignty.  Klix  v  St.  Stanislaus 
Church,  137  Mo.  App.  347. 

Independence.  The  State  having  prescribed  no  law  for  the 
action  of  any  church,  leaves  each  church  or  denomination 
to  the  guidance  of  its  own  law,  and  looks  to  that  as  the 
standard  by  which  all  internal  disputes  are  to  be  tried. 
Winebrenner  v  Colder,  7  Wright  (Pa.)  L*44. 

Lecture  Room.  The  Sunday  school  room  and  lecture  room 
of  a  modern  church  are  as  essentially  used  for  religious  pur- 
poses as  the  body  of  the  church  building  itself.  It  is  used 
for  the  midweek  evening  lectures  and  othei-  services,  when 
the  attendance  is  not  large.  The  exi)ens('  of  lighting  and 
heating  the  main  church  building  is  thus  avoided.  Put  the 
services  upon  such  occasi(»ns  ai-e  as  truly  religious  in  their 
character  as  the  sermon  u])on  the  Sabbath.  The  character 
of  the  use  of  the  room  is  iM)t  change<l  by  its  occasional  use 
for  social  gatherings  incident  to  the  chui-«h.  for  societies 
for  benevolent  objects,  and  for  fairs  held  by  the  ladies  to 
raise  funds  for  missionary  w(»rk.  All  these  <M-casional  uses 
are  gerniane  to  the  regular  purpo.se  of  the  room.  Craig  v 
First  Presbyterian  Church,  88  Pa.  St.  42. 

Legislative  Power.  It  is  a  matter  dcducibU*  from  history, 
as  well  as  from  the  curi-ent  religious  literature  of  the  times. 


I  I  I  Tin:   (MX  IL    LAW    AM)   'I'lli:   ("III    IMII 

lli.'il  cNciv  tliiiifli  ;iiiil  »'\('iy  |iiiiHi|i;il  ('(•(•|('si;ist  iciil  ilciHtin- 
iiKiliuii  chiiiiiinu  to  he  luniiijcd  ii|i<)ii  Clwist  i;iii  priiicipleK, 
or  coiiiiKtscd  (»r  persons  (mIIIii;^  I  liciiisrivcs  ( 'liiisti;iiis,  luis 
williiii  itself  some  (pi;isi  legislative  or  siipreiiu;  power  luiv- 
iiij;  coiitiol  o\ei-  iii.ilters  of  (loelriiie  ;is  N\ell  :is  discipline, 
:iimI  lijiviiiij;  some  jiiris(li<lioii  at  least  over  wliat  pertains  to 
the  faith  as  well  as  the  pi-actices  of  its  memlters.  While 
Lick  (,)iiart.  Meet.  etc..  v  White  Lick  (^nait.  Meet.  etc.  S!> 
hi.I.  l.-'.C. 

Liquor  Tax  Law.  A  two-storv  Imildiiijjj  the  upper  story  of 
which  was  used  for  reli<;ious  worship  by  a  .Jewish  congrej^a- 
ti<Hi  and  the  lower  story  for  its  Sunday  sciiool  and  also  by 
.several  .Jewish  charitable  societies,  which  paid  rent  f<H'  the 
use  of  the  building,  was  hebl  to  be  a  eliurch  uuder  the 
Liipior  Tax  Law.  Matter  of  McCusker,  47  App.  I)iv.  (X.  Y. ) 
li;}. 

In  matter  of  Fiuley,  58  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  6.39,  it  was  hebi 
that  where  the  i>arb)r  floor  of  a  building  erected  for  a  dwell- 
ing house  is  used  for  the  services  of  a  church  and  Sunday 
school,  while  the  pastor  or  minister  in  charge  lives  with  Lis 
family  on  the  second  floor,  keei)ing  house  with  the  usual 
accommodations  and  conveniences  for  that  purpose,  and  the 
til i I'd  floor  is  occupied  by  a  woman  who  more  or  less  looks 
after  the  work  to  be  done  on  the  premises,  with  her  children, 
such  buihling  is  not  used  exclusively  as  a  church  within  the 
meaning  of  the  Liquor  Tax  Law.  It  appeared  that  the 
building  was  erected  for  a  dwelling  house  and  its  structure 
was  not  changed  after  it  was  purchased  by  a  religious  so- 
ciety for  church  purposes. 

Majority,  Power.  A  majority  of  a  church  congregation 
may  dii-ect  and  contrcd  in  church  matters  consistently  with 
the  particular  and  general  laws  of  the  organism  or  denom- 
ination to  which  it  belongs.  Henry  v  Deitrich,  84  Pa. 
St.  28(1;  see  also  Stogner  v  Laird,  14.")  S.  AY.  (Tex.)  644. 

On  a  schism  or  division  in  a  church  or  religious  society, 
the  nuMubers  of  the  min<»rity  faction  having  been  expelled 
by  the  majority,  and  both  factions  afterward  assembling  at 


CHUKCH  115 

the  cliiii-cli  for  worsliij)  at  the  saiiic  tiiiie,  if  tlie  officers  and 
members  of  the  iniiiority  atteinjjt  to  coikIikI  rrlijiioiis  ser- 
vices, they  are  mere  iiitru<lei-s.  ami  the  majority  may  law- 
fully remonstrate  aj;aiiist  it,  and  may  use  such  means,  not 
amounting  to  needless  force,  as  may  be  necessary  to  jirevent 
it.    Morris  v  State,  St  Ala.  457. 

Merger.  You  cannot  by  union  put  one  cluircii  into  another 
having  a  different  creed  and  doctrine,  without  forfeit in«;  the 
l>roperty  held  in  trust  to  such  mend)ers  of  liie  l»<)dy  as 
remain  faithful  to  the  original  creed  and  doctrine.  Boyles  v 
Roberts,  222  Mo.  (ii:;. 

Minister,  Liability  for  Libel.  A  decision  was  agreed  on  in 
a  church  meeting  and  ordered  to  be  ]»romulgated  by  r<Mding 
it  before  the  chui-ch  and  c<Higregation.  The  jtastor  of  the 
church  and  minister  of  the  congregation  was  acting  within 
the  scope  of  his  authority  in  reading  a  paper,  which,  it  was 
proved,  had  been  adopted  in  a  separate  nu^eting  of  the 
church,  and  directed  thus  to  be  read.  One  gi-eat  i)iiri>ose  of 
an  act  of  church  discipline  is  that  it  may  have  a  salntary 
influence  upon  the  whole  religious  body,  of  wliieh  the 
oU'ender  is  a  member,  and  tlie  reading  of  sncli  a  |>a|>er  by  the 
pastor  was  within  the  scoi)e  of  liis  aiitiiorily.  I■^^•nswortll 
V  Storrs,  5  Cush.  (Mass.)  412. 

Organic  Law.  A  chui-ch,  like  every  otiier  organize<l  body 
of  citizens,  must  be  consolidated  by  an  oi-ganic  law;  and 
under  and  according  to  the  constitution  of  the  I'nited  States 
the  organic  law  of  the  Presbyterian  Ciinrch  is  a  fnndamental 
comjiact  voluntarily  made  between  all  tiie  menibeis  <»f  the 
unincorporated  association  for  liie  gnidance  ami  piotec- 
tion  of  each  constitnenf  churcli  member,  and  neicssarily 
inviolable  by  any  delegated  i)ow('r  of  the  aggregate  iluirch. 
It  defines  the  sphere  of  the  General  Asseiid)ly  as  the  organ- 
ized rej)resentative  of  all  the  nuMnbers  of  the  l'resbyt«'riau 
Church,  as  a  Christian  nationality,  snbordinale  lo  the  polit- 
ical sovereignty  of  th*'  civil  nation,  which  is  as  sn|ii-cme  over 
niend)ers  of  the  chnrch  as  over  any  other  citizens. 

The  Tresbyterian  Chnrch  is  certaiidy  as  mnch  Ixmnd  as 


I  h;        'I'lii;  ("i\ii.  LAW  AM)  'i'lii:  ciiri;*'!! 

('t)ii<;r('ss  \)\  llio  l'(.'(lrf;il  ((disl  it  iit  ion,  iiiid  all  its  iiiciiiIxtk 
are  Hubonlinate  to  that  and  tlic  Stalo  constitutions,  which 
ai-c  snpnMnc  over  all  citizens  in  every  condition,  r.artin  v 
I'enick.  .")  P.usli.  fKy. )   110. 

Property,  Beneficiaries.  When  property  is  conveyed  to  a 
l>articnlar  clmrcli,  witlionl  reference  to  its  conn(*ction  with 
any  other  body,  the  majority  of  the  church  are  the  hene- 
ticiaries  who  remain  under  the  organization  then  existing. 
Harper  v  Straws,  If  V,.  >r«.n.  (  Ky.  I  48. 

Relation  to  Congregation.  The  church  and  congregation 
for  some  purposes,  form  one  religions  society,  associated 
under  one  |»astor  and  ministei-  for  religious  improvemei»t. 
The  church  constitutes  a  select  body,  set  apart  for  si)ecial 
purposes  by  covenant,  and  at  the  same  time  forms  part  of 
the  congi-egation.  C)th(»r  niembei's  of  the  congregation  may, 
upon  suitable  application,  become  members  of  the  church, 
and  all  have  a  common  interest  in  the  general  religious  wel- 
fare of  each  other.  In  nniny  congregations  pro])osals  for 
admission  to  the  church  and  actual  admissions  take  place 
before  the  congregation ;  and  in  all  societies,  the  ordinance 
of  baptism  is  public.  Farnsworth  v  Storrs,  5  Cush.  (Mass.) 
iV2. 

Rules  and  Regulations,  Effect.  The  rules  and  regulations 
of  a  church  are,  so  far  as  church  matters  are  concerned,  a 
part  of  the  law  governing  the  members  of  such  church.  A 
person  who  voluntarily  joins  a  church,  and  tacitly,  at  least, 
agrees  to  be  bound  by  all  the  rules  and  regulations  of  siich 
church,  cannot  afterward  be  allowed  wholly  to  ignore  and 
disregard  such  rules  and  regulations.  As  to  all  matters  per- 
taining to  the  church,  he  is  clearly  bound  by  the  rules  and 
regulations  of  the  church,  unless  the  .same  are  clearly  illegal. 
Wnable  v  Ebenezer  Bapt.  Ch.  25  Kan.  177. 

Service.  ''The  church  is  the  place  proper  for  the  celebra- 
tion of  divine  service,  and  at  common  law  the  church  is  open 
to  all  parishioners.  The  exercise  of  the  functions  of  a  min- 
ister or  preacher  of  the  Holy  Word  of  God  contemplates  the 
presence  of  a   congregation    at   the  services  celebrated  by 


CHURCH  117 

him."     Attorney    General    v    Hall,    2    Irish    lie.    291,    :iuy 
(1896). 
Sewing  Circle.     In  First  Baptist  Church  in  Franklindale 

V  I'ryor,  23  Hun  (N.  Y.)  271,  the  society  was  held  entitled 
to  recover  a  fund  raised  by  a  sewing  circle  connected  with 
the  church.  The  circle  had  a  treasurer  who  received  the 
money.  The  court  said  the  money  was  obviously  paid  for 
the  use  of  the  church  which  could  adopt  and  ratify  the 
action  of  the  sewing  circle  in  raising  tlie  money.  Such  a 
fund  became  the  pro])erty  of  the  church. 

Temporalities  Defined.  These  are  understood  to  be  the 
revenues,  lands,  and  tenements,  to  be  managed  according  to 
the  character  and  the  by-laws;  in  other  words,  secular  pos- 
sessions with  which  a  church  may  be  endowed.    St.  Patricks 

V  Abst,  76  111.  252. 

Territorial  Limitation.  When  a  parish  or  religious  society 
is,  by  its  constitution,  limited  to  any  i)laei'.  the  chuich  of 
such  society,  by  whatevei-  terms  designated,  is  equally  lim- 
ited, being  necessarily  associated  ami  indissolnbly  connected 
with  such  religious  society,  and  incajiable  of  subsisting 
independently  of  it.  Stebbins  v  Jennings,  10  IMek.  (Mass.) 
171. 

Union.  There  must  be  identity  of  doctrine  and  faith 
before  a  majority  of  a  ehurch  organization  can  take  the 
church  i)roperty  into  another  <hur(h.  Boyles  v  Koberts. 
222  Mo.  613. 

Virginia,  cannot  be  Incorporated.  Chui-ches  in  X'irginia  ai-e 
not  incorporated,  and  under  the  ])oli(y  of  the  law  ol'  that 
State  cannot  be.  The  property  they  are  permitted  to  hold, 
and  its  use,  is  fixed  by  statute.  Church  trustees  are  crea- 
tures of  statute,  and  theii'  powers  are  limited  by  the  law  that 
authorizes  their  ai»i)ointment.     (Jlobe   I'^urniture  Company 

V  Trustees,  Jerusalem  Baptist  Church,  1(13  Va.  itiii). 

Who  Constitute.  In  whatever  aspect  a  church,  for  some 
purposes,  may  be  c()nsidere<l,  it  appears  to  be  clear  from 
the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  land  and  Irom  judicial 
decisions,    that    the    b(»dy    of    tnMimunicants    gailiered    int<» 


IIS        Tin:  ri\  iL  LAW  ANh  'riiio  ciiriicii 

cliiircli  order,  jircordiii;;  lo  csljiMislu'd  nsiij^os,  in  any  town, 
pjirisli,  |»r('cin<-(,  oi-  r<'ligi«His  socicly,  cslahlislicd  according; 
lo  law,  and  at  Inally  connected  and  asHOciated  therewith  for 
rc!i;,n(>ns  itiii|>os('s,  for  tlie  time  bein};,  is  to  be  rej^ardcd  as 
the  clnu'cli  of  such  society,  as  to  all  qnestions  of  jn-opcrty 
depending;  njton  that  relation.  Stebbins  v  Jennings,  10 
I'ick.  (Mass.)    171. 


CHURCH  EDIFICE 

Defined,  119. 

Not  subject  to  execution,  119. 
When  may  be  closed,  119. 

Defined.  A  oIiuitIi  edifice  is  iiii(lerstoo<l  to  be  a  building 
in  which  people  assenible  i'or  the  worship  of  God,  and  for 
the  administration  of  such  oflBces  and  services  as  pertain  to 
that  worship.  Ee  St.  Louis  Inst,  of  Christian  Science,  27 
Mo.  App.  G83. 

Not  Subject  to  Execution.  A  meetinghouse  is  not  liable  to 
be  taken  in  execution  foj-  the  debts  of  such  society.  Bigelow 
\^  Congregational  Society,  Middletown,  11  \'t.  283. 

When  May  Be  Closed.  If  the  church  is  held  by  the  associa- 
tion as  its  absolute  ]»r()p(M-ty.  without  any  trust  whatever, 
it  nuiy  be  closed  by  a  legal  vote  of  the  association,  passed  by 
a  majority  of  the  members  present  at  a  legal  meeting  called 
for  the  purpose,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  a  minority 
of  the  members  i)resent  desire  to  use  the  church,  and  vote 
against  closing  it.  But  if  a  trust  for  the  members  of  the 
society  attaches  to  the  i»ro]KMty  in  the  hands  of  the  society, 
the  latter  cannot  close  the  cliui-ch  against  tiie  wishes  of  a 
minority  of  the  society  who  desire  to  continue  to  worshij) 
there  in  accordance  with  (he  terms  of  the  Irnsl.  (Canadian 
Iteligious  Association  v  J'armenler,  ISO  Mass.  415. 


119 


C^HURCH  OF  ENGLAND 

Clcr^J:>^nan,  renular  defined,  120, 

Clcrgjinan,  ncglecit  of  duty,  120. 

Coniinunioii,  120. 

Estiiblished  C'hiinli,  121. 

Evil  Liver,  122. 

Maryland,  122. 

Minister  cannot  refu.se  to  bury  child  of  a  dissenter,  122, 

Not  a  cori)oration,  122. 

Quaker  not  bound  to  accept  office  of  churchwarden,  123. 

Sacrament,  who  may  take,  123. 

Clergyman.  Regular  Defined.  A  regular  clergyman  means 
a  person  who  ean  ottieiate  without  being  guilty  ol"  irreg- 
ularity. A  clergj-nian  of  the  Clnirch  of  England,  Avho  lia<l 
been  inhibited  by  the  Bishop  of  London  from  performing 
divine  service  in  that  diocese  was  held  incompetent  to  per- 
form divine  service  in  a  chapel  under  lease,  requiring  such 
service  to  be  performed  by  a  regular  clergA'man  of  the 
Church  of  England.  Foundling  Hospital  v  Garrett,  47  L.  T, 
(Eng.)  230, 

Clergyman,  Neglect  of  Duty.  A  clergj'^mau  may  be  prose- 
cuted by  any  one  lor  neglect  of  clerical  duty.  Argar  v 
Holdsworth,  2  Lee  (Eng,)  224, 

Communion.  In  a  suit  under  the  church  discipline  act, 
against  the  respondent,  for  having  on  the  4th  of  October, 
1874,  re])elled  from  the  holy  communion  without  lawful 
cause  the  apjiellant,  a  ])arishioner,  who  had  presented  him- 
self after  due  notice,  tlie  respondent  ansM-ered  that  he  did 
so  for  and  on  account  of  the  writing  and  publishing  by  the 
ap])ellant  of  certain  letters  addressed  to  the  respondent, 
and  of  his  causing  to  be  i)rinted  and  published  a  certain 
volume  of  selections  from  the  Old  aud  New  Testaments,  and 
for  no  other  cause  or  reason  whatever.    It  appeared  that  one 

120 


("lU'lU'li  OF   i:.\(iJ.ANl)  121 

of  the  letters  jtiotested  against  tlic  irrdijiioiis  teinleucy  ul"  a 
sermon,  not  produced,  which  had  liccn  jireached  by  the 
respondent,  and  that  another  of  the  letters,  a  private  and 
solicited  coniinunicatiou,  explained  that  the  construction 
which  he,  the  appellant,  placed  upon  certain  i)arts  of  the 
Bible  not  being  the  same  as  the  construction  which,  in  his 
opinion,  was  generally  placed  thereon,  he  omitted  such 
parts  from  the  said  volume  and  from  his  family  reading.  It 
further  appeared  that  the  appellant  had  published  a  book  of 
family  prayers,  comjiiled  entirely  from  the  Liturgy  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  that  he  had  stated  that  he  valued 
the  Book  of  Common  I'raj'er  as  "only  second  to  the  Bible 
itself."  It  further  ai)i)eared  that  the  ai>i>ellaiit  was  of  irre- 
proachable moral  character. 

It  was  held  that  no  lawful  cause  of  expulsion  had  been 
shown ;  that  the  ai»])ellant  was  not  "an  open  and  notorious 
evil  liver"  within  the  meaning  of  the  rubric;  neither  was  he 
a  "Common  and  Notorious  depraver  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer"  within  the  meaning  of  the  27th  Canon.  Jenkins  v 
Cook,  L.  R.  1  Probate  Div.  (Eng.)  80. 

Established  Church.  "In  a  countrj^  in  which  an  Estab- 
lished Cluirch  exists  the  law  recognizes  the  essential  doc- 
trines of  that  church  as  being  true;  and  when,  according  to 
those  doctrines,  a  benefit,  either  spiritual  or  temjjoral,  re- 
sults to  the  general  body  of  the  faithful,  from  the  offering  up 
of  prayers,  or  the  celebration  of  religious  services,  such  spir- 
itual or  temporal  benefit  would  be  recognized  by  the  law  as 
such  a  public  benefit  as  would  bring  witliin  a  statute  a  trust 
to  promote  the  service  of  i)rayers  of  the  I-stablishcd  Cliun  h, 
even  if  such  i)rayers  and  such  services  were  cajtable  of  being 
offered  up  in  private.  But  tlie  case  of  a  religion,  the  exercise 
of  which  is  lawful,  but  which  is  not  established  by  law.  such 
as  the  Roman  (-atholic  religion,  dillers  from  that  last  men- 
tioned in  this,  that  its  doctrines,  allhongli  cai)able  of  being 
recognize<l  by  the  law  as  those  which  the  mend)»'rs  of  that 
particular  faith  believe  to  be  true,  cannot  be  recognized,  as 
can  the  doctrines  of  ;ni    l^sliihlislicd    Church,   as   being   in 


122  Tin:  CINIL   LAW  AM)  Till:  ClirKClI 

fact  true;  and  (JHTcrorc,  llic  arjijnincMit  thai  llic  services  of 
siicli  a  rcli^Moii,  (illcred  ii|i  otiicrwisc  than  in  puMic,  are  a 
licnclit  to  llic  pnhlic,  lacks  one  of  the  essential  elements 
which  is  |>rcscn(  in  the  case  of  a  similar  trust  as  to  an  estab- 
lished I'cli^jion;  and,  therefore,  the  conclusion  that  there 
may  I»c,  in  such  a  trust,  a  fniblic  benefit  recognizable  by  the 
law,  fails."  Attorney  General  v  Hall,  2  Irish  R.  2!)1,  :U)0 
(ISJMIi. 

Evil  Liver.  A  man  who  marries  his  deceased  wife's  sister 
is  not  an  ''evil  liver"  within  the  meaning:;  of  the  rnbi'ic  ju'e- 
tixed  to  the  service  of  the  holy  conininnion  in  the  Hook  of 
Common  Prayer,  so  as  to  justify  his  repulsion  from  the  holy 
comninnion.  Banister  v  Thompson,  24  T.  L.  R.  (Eng. )  841, 
construing  the  deceased  wife's  sister  marriage  act  of  1007. 

Maryland.  By  the  Maryland  act  of  1702,  chap.  1,  the 
Church  of  England,  with  its  rites,  ceremonies,  and  sacra- 
ments, was  declared  to  be  the  established  church  of  the 
province;  and  provision  was  made  for  the  support  of  min- 
isters. The  Bishop  of  London  had  ecclesiastical  jurisdic- 
tion in  Maryland.  The  establishment  was  terminated  by 
the  State  constitution  adopted  at  the  Revolution.  Bartlett 
v  ITipkins,  7(5  ^Id.  iy. 

Minister  Cannot  Refuse  to  Bury  Child  of  a  Dissenter.  A 
minister  of  the  Established  Church  cannot  refuse  to  bury  a 
child  of  a  dissenter.    Kemp  v  Wickes,  8  Phill.  (Eug. )  27(j. 

Not  a  Corporation.  At  common  law  the  Church  of  I'jug- 
land.  in  its  aggregate  description,  is  not  deemed  a  corpora- 
tion. It  is  indeed  one  of  the  great  estates  of  the  realm ; 
but  is  not  more  on  that  account  a  corporation,  than  the 
nobilitv'  in  their  collective  capacity'.  The  phrase,  "the 
Church  of  England,"  so  familiar  in  our  laws  and  judicial 
treatises,  is  nothing  more  than  a  compendious  expression 
for  the  religious  establishment  of  the  realm,  considered  in 
the  aggregate  under  the  superintendance  of  its  si>iritual 
head.  In  this  sense  the  Church  of  England  is  said  to  have 
jHMiiliar  rights  and  privileges,  not  as  a  corporation,  but  as 
an   ecclesiastical    institution    under   the   i)atronage   of   the 


CHUKCH  OF  KN(JLAM)  li';{ 

state.  Town  of  I'awlet  v  Clark  and  oIIums,  '.»  Ciaiicli  (U.  S. ) 
21)  1. 

Quaker  Not  Bound  to  Accept  Office  of  Churchwarden.  The 
court  declined  to  conijtel  a  Q'i'*''^**i'  ^^*  accei>l  the  ollice  of 
churchwarden  to  which  he  had  been  elected.  Adey  v  Theo- 
bald, 1  Curteis  (Knj-.)  :5T:5. 

Sacrament,  Who  May  Take.  liy  llic  (liscipliiic  of  this 
church  "no  person  can,  at  the  same  time,  be  a  re^nlar  coiii- 
municant  in  se])arate  parishes  under  the  care  of  diUVreiit 
independent  rectors.  The  canons  of  the  church  panicu- 
larly  direct  that  the  sacrament  shall  not  be  adniinisteied 
by  the  rector  of  one  i)arish  to  the  |»arishioners  of  aiiotlier, 
without  the  license  of  the  rector  of  the  latter  ]>arish,  exce|)t 
to  travelers,  to  persons  in  daiiger  of  death,  or  in  cases  of 
necessity.''  To  be  regular,  the  parishioners  shonhl  coninni- 
nicate  at  least  thrice  in  every  year.  The  only  lej^al  evidence 
that  the  parishioner  is  a  coniniunicanl  is  his  receivinji  the 
sacrament  in  the  parish  clnircli,  by  and  with  the  consent  of 
the  priest,  and  (he  rector  cannot  take  notice  of  the  receipt 
of  the  communion  in  other  parishes.  Groesbeeck  v  Duns- 
cond),  il  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  302;  See  also  clerjiyman. 


CHURCH  OF  GOD  AT  HARRISBURG 

History  uiul  form  of  government,  124. 

History  and  Form  of  Government.  In  tlie  year  1825  a  coti- 
jirejiation  of  woisliipois  was  formed  in  Harrisbnrg,  callin*? 
itself  the  Cbiircli  of  God  at  Harrisburg,  and  professing  to 
have  no  other  creed  tlian  the  Bible,  with  an  independent 
church  government.  This  denomination  continued  to  nour- 
ish, and  sj)read  over  the  State,  forming  many  congregations, 
having  no  connection  with  each  other  until  the  year  I80O. 
when  a  confederation  took  place,  for  the  mere  purpose  of 
cooperation ;  by  which  an  eldership  was  formed  which 
was  soon  after  known  as  the  East  I'ennsylvania  Elder- 
ship; another  was  established  in  the  w^estern  part  of  the 
State  about  the  same  time.  This  East  Pennsylvania  Elder- 
ship adopted  a  constitution  about  the  year  1832,  but  its 
nature  or  character  cannot  be  precisely  ascertained,  as 
no  copy  thereof  w^as  presented  to  the  court.  The  consti- 
tution given  in  evidence,  which  was  an  amendment  of 
the  former,  was  adopted  in  October,  1852.  By  the  year 
1845  the  denomination  had  extended  over  many  of  the  West- 
ern States,  when  it  was  resolved  to  establish  a  general  elder- 
ship, which  was  to  be  composed  of  delegates  from  all  the 
elderships,  who  were  to  meet  once  in  three  years.  A  con- 
stitution for  its  government  was  adopted,  and  this  general 
eldership  was  invested  with  a  degree  of  control  over  all  the 
churches;  among  other  things,  with  the  licensing  of  preach- 
ers, and  certain  appellate  i)owers  from  the  inferior  elder- 
ships. The  locating  and  removal  of  pastors,  and  arranging 
the  limits  and  boundaries  of  congregations,  w^as  vested  in 
the  local  eldershi])s.  which  acted  through  its  committees; 
it  also  seems  to  have  been  invested  with  power  to  suspend, 

124 


CHUKCH  OF  GOD  AT  IIAKKISBUKG  IlM 

;uicl  probably  to  expel,  a  clergyiuuii  lor  caii.se,  as  also  the 
lay  members  or  elders  and  deacous  of  the  congregations. 
On  the  21st  of  April,  1857,  the  East  I'ennsylvania  Eldersliip 
was  incorporated  by  an  Act  of  Assembly,  but  no  special  or 
particular  powers  were  conferred  by  the  charter  in  regard 
to  the  government  of  the  church.  It  is  provided  in  the  con- 
stitution of  the  general  ehh*rship  tlial  n«>  jKMson  shall  be 
an  accredited  minister  in  the  Cluncli  of  (!»»<!  \viili(»ut  a 
regular  license,  and  all  the  preachers  in  good  standing  shall 
have  their  licenses  renewed  annually  by  the  eldership  of 
which  they  are  members.  The  constitution  of  the  East 
l*enns3'lvania  Eldership  provides  for  ministers  making  an 
annual  report,  which  if  api)roved,  their  licen.ses  .shall  be 
renewed.  The  same  instrument  gives  a  committee  all  the 
power  of  the  eldership,  except  to  exi)el  or  change  preachers 
without  cause.  It  may  try,  and  .suspend  a  preacher,  change 
api)ointments  or  remove  him,  provided  it  is  done  through 
the  application  of  a  preacher,  or  a  church  acting  by  its 
elders.  The  stationing  committee  is  authorized  to  locate  the 
ministers  by  the  vote  of  a  nmjority,  in  which  case  the  com- 
mittee are  to  take  it  back  and  report  another;  and  all  per- 
sons asking  for  an  a]>i>ointment  as  i»astor  are  reipiired  to 
take  the  one  allotted  to  them  under  ])enaUy  of  not  receiving 
one  for  a  year.  AVinebrenner  v  Colder,  7  "Wright  (Pa.)  ii41. 
John  Winebrenner  was  the  founder  of  the  sect,  and  he  wrote 
a  history  and  exposition  of  the  doctrine  and  order  of  the 
church. 


CHURCH  WARDENS 

Acrount,  spiritual  court  cannot  settle,  126. 
lousiness  powers  limit cd,  126. 
Ecclcsiiistical  powers,  126. 
Moral  guardians,  126. 

Account,  Spiritual  Court  Cannot  Settle.  A  s]>iritnal  conit 
has  Tio  jurisdiction  to  settle  churchwarden's  account. 
Adams  V  Kiiscli,  2  Str.  (Enj?.)  1188. 

Business  Powers  Limited.  A  eluirchwarden  has  no  author- 
ity to  pledge  credit  of  his  co-churchwardens  for  repairs  to 
the  church.  If  he  orders  such  repairs  without  the  knowl- 
edjie  of  the  other  churchwardens,  he  is  liable  individually. 
North  waits  v  Bennett,  2  Crompt.  &  Meesons  Kep.  (Eng.) 
810. 

Ecclesiastical  Powers.  The  Legislature  has  no  power  to 
authorize  the  wardens  to  interfere  in  matters  of  mere  church 
discipline  and  doctrine.  It  could  not  constitutionally  de- 
clare what  shall  constitute  a  curate  in  the  catliolic  accepta- 
tion of  the  word,  without  interfering  in  matters  of  religious 
faith  and  worship,  and  taking  the  iirst  step  toward  a  church 
establislmuMit  by  law.  Wardens  of  the  Church  of  !r*t.  Louis 
V  Blanc,  S  Bob.  (La.)  52. 

Moral  Guardians.  Churchwardens  are.  to  a  certain  degree, 
the  guardians  of  the  moral  cliaracter  and  public  decency 
of  their  respective  parishes.  Griffiths  v  Reed,  1  Hagg.  Ecc. 
Be.  (Eng.)  79. 


126 


CIVIL  COURTS 

Charitable  use,  128. 

Church  arbitration  conchisive,  128. 

Church  judicatories,  when  actitjn  final,  128. 

Church  judicatories,  limits  of  judicial  review,  133. 

Civil  rights  only,  138. 

Consohdation  of  churches,  141. 

Constitution  of  church,  142. 

Creed,  142. 

Criterion,  142. 

Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church,  143. 

Diversion  of  church  funds,  144. 

Diversion  of  property,  144. 

Doctrine,  145. 

Dowie's  successor,  148. 

Ecclesiastical  questions,  148. 

Elections,  149. 

Expulsion  of  members,  149. 

Friends,  form  of  government,  151. 

Heresy,  151. 

Judicial  notice,  152. 

Jurisdiction,  true  rule,  152. 

Jurisdiction,  153. 

Members,  status,  154. 

Minister,  155. 

Noninterference,  156. 

Officers,  powers,  156. 

Property  rights,  three  classes,  157. 

Proi)erty  rights,  157. 

Prot(>stant  Ei)iscoi)al  vestry,  158. 

Quakers,  who  are  overs(HM*s,  158. 

Religious  (juestions,  158. 

Resulting  trust,  beneficiary,  102. 

Salary,  payment  cannot  be  enforced,  162. 

Schism,  1G2. 

Separation,  163. 

Temporalities,  163. 

Trusts,  103. 

127 


ii's        'I'm;  ri\  1 1,  LAW  AM)  'I'm;  ciii  k<ii 

Unitt'd  Mntlin-ii  in  CJiiist,  H't't. 
Worship  and  Doctrine,  KKl. 

Charitable  Use.  It  is  not  the  in-oviiice  of  the  court  to 
<leterniiiio  wlielher  ecclesiastical  duties  eu joined  under  a 
charit;ihh'  foiiiidMlion  are  pi-operly  ]>eif()i-ined.  That  is  a 
matter  of  which  the  ecch'siastical  authorities  will  take  cog- 
nizance. But  in  settliuj^  a  sclieiue  for  tlie  regulation  of 
such  a  charily,  tlie  court  must,  at  least,  take  care  tliat  the 
person  bv  wliom  the  ecclesiastical  duties  ought  to  be  per- 
formed is  in  sucli  a  situation  that  he  may  perform  them. 
AttoT'uey  rn')i('ial  v  i^niithies,  1  Keen,  (Enji". )  289. 

Church  Arbitration  Conclusive.  A  minister  and  his  parish 
submitted  a  controversy  to  an  ecclesiastical  counsel.  The 
issue  involved  charges  of  immorality  against  the  minister. 
These  charges  were  not  sustained  bj'  the  counsel.  After- 
ward the  minister  brought  an  action  against  the  parish  for 
a  portion  of  his  salaiy  and  the  parish  sought  by  a  bill  of 
discovery  to  reopen  and  reexamine  the  issues  submitted  to 
the  ecclesiastical  counsel,  but  it  was  held  that  the  award 
of  the  counsel  was  conclusive  and  could  not  be  made  the 
subject  of  an  inquiry  in  the  civil  courts.  I'roprietors  v 
Pierpont,  48  Mass.  49G. 

Church  Judicatories,  when  Action  Final.  When  it  appears 
that  the  whole  controversy  had  once  been  submitted  bj'  the 
parties  to  the  ecclesiastical  tribunal  which  the  church 
itself  has  organized  for  that  purpose,  the  civil  courts  are 
justified  in  refusing  to  proceed  any  further.  The  decision 
of  the  church  judicatory  should  then  be  treated  as  a  bar 
to  the  action  and  a  good  defense  in  law.  A  priest  or  min- 
ister of  an}-  church,  by  assuming  that  relation,  necessarily 
subjects  his  conduct  in  that  capacity  to  the  laws  and  cus- 
toms of  the  ecclesiastical  body  from  which  he  derives  his 
oflBce,  and  in  who.se  name  he  exercises  his  functions;  and 
when  he  submits  questions  concerning  his  rights,  duties, 
and  obligations  as  such  priest  or  minister  to  the  proper 
churcli  judicatory,  and  they  have  been  heard  and  decided 


CI\IL  CULKTri  li.".) 

according  to  the  prescribed  forms,  such  decision  is  binding 
upon  him  and  will  be  respected  by  civil  courts,  lie  can 
always  insist,  of  course,  that  his  civil  or  property  rights  as 
an  individual  or  citizen  shall  be  determined  according  to  the 
law  of  the  laud,  but  his  relations,  riglits,  and  obligations 
arising  from  his  position  as  a  member  of  some  religions 
body  may  be  determined  according  to  the  laws  and  piocc 
dure  enacted  by  that  body  for  such  purpose.  iJa.xtci  v 
McDonnell,  155  N.  Y.  cS:{. 

Where  a  local  church  organization  is  a  mend)er  of  a  gen- 
eral organization,  having  i-nies  for  the  government  and  con- 
duct of  all  its  adherents,  congregations,  and  oHiccis,  ilie 
judgments  of  tlie  general  organization,  throngii  its  govern- 
ing authority,  so  long  as  they  relate  exclusively  to  church 
affairs  and  church  cases,  are  binding  upon  such  Ideal  organ 
izations,  and  Avill  not  be  reexaminod  by  the  coinls.  IJon- 
acum  V  Harrington,  05  Xeb.  8:51. 

In  all  ecclesiastical  matteis  the  courts  are  bound  by  the 
decision  of  the  ecclesiastical  tribunal.  Trinity  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  Xoiwich  v  Harris,  T.'l  Conn.  I'HI. 

Courts  will  not  review  judgments  oi-  acts  of  the  govern- 
ing authorities  of  a  religious  organization  with  reference  to 
its  internal  all'airs,  for  the  pnrjiose  of  ascertaining  their 
regularity  or  accordance  with  the  discii)line  and  usages  of 
such  organization.  It  can  make  no  dill'erence  whether  the 
governing  authority  of  a  religious  denomination  is  con  tided 
to  one  man  or  to  a  syiu)d  or  conference,  nor  whether  the 
mode  of  proccdui-e  jtermitted  to  such  person  is  in  accord 
with  the  or<linary  course  of  investigations  or  trials  among 
laymen.  p]ach  religious  organization  nmsi  deterniiu*'  its 
own  polity  and  be  the  judge  of  its  (»\\ii  laws.  I*<Miai  um  v 
Harrington,  ()5  Xeb.  S.".  1. 

It  is  well-setl  led  law  dial  llie  civil  coni-ls  h.ive  and  will 
exercise  no  jnrisdicticui  to  rexiew  the  action  (»f  ecclesiastical 
bodies  in  matters  i-elaling  pnrely  to  the  faith  ;ind  discipline 
of  the  church.  l>nt  the  nieiiibers  of  these  liodies  h;i\t'  the 
same  right  as  those  of  oilier  \oIiiiil;iiy  ass(M-ialioiis  of  pei'- 


i:;(»        Tin:  cin  il  i,.\w  and  'I'iii;  cm  ijcii 

sons  luriiH'il  I'nr  »li;i ri hililc  ;iii(i  li('iic\ ((lent  piii|»«)S('s,  to  seek 
llic  :iiil  ol'  cixil  courts  to  prcvciil  ;i  diversion  of  its  property 
from  tlic  uses  :iihI  Inisis  lo  which  it  vvjis  (h'votcd,  and  to 
sccni'c  lo  tlic  nicndx'i's  the  cnjoynuMit  of  the  rij^hts  of  nieni- 
hcisliip  in  respect  to  the  nse  of  the  jM'opei'tv.  It,  therefore, 
sometimes  hecomes  necessary  I'oi"  the  civil  courts,  for  the 
pur|»ose  of  detei-mininj;'  pro|>erl_v  rij^hts  of  niemlu'i's,  to  pass 
upon  (pM'stions  which  are  ecclesiastical  in  their  nature. 
Fulhright  v  IIi<(<jenl»otham,  l.'U',  Mo.  (;(;S.  See  Marie  M.  V. 
Church  of  Chicaj^o  v  Trinity  M.  E.  Church  of  Chicago,  25o 
111.  I'l. 

The  civil  courts  will  not  review  or  revise  the  proceedings 
or  judgment  of  church  trihunals,  constituted  by  the  organic 
laws  of  the  church  organization,  where  tliey  involve  solely 
questions  of  church  discii)line  or  infractions  of  the  laws  and 
ordinances  enacted  by  its  ruling  body  for  the  government 
of  its  officers  and  members.  But  where  a  cImum  h  tribunal 
of  original  jurisdiction  proceeds  to  try  and  discipline  or 
expel  a  member  of  the  society,  and  the  member  proceeded 
against  claims  that  the  presiding  judge  is  disqualified  from 
acting  on  account  of  a  challenge  interposed  before  the  com- 
mencement of  the  trial,  and  where  such  challenge  has  been 
disregarded  and  an  appeal  has  been  taken  by  the  accused  to 
an  ai)i)ellate  church  tribunal,  the  civil  courts  have  jurisdic- 
tion to  enjoin  the  enforcement  of  a  sentence  pronounced 
against  the  accused  until  the  appellate  ecclesiastical  tri- 
bunal has  disposed  of  the  appeal.  Bonacuni  v  Murphy,  71 
Neb.  40o.  But  see  a  contrary  view  ou  a  rehearing  of  this 
case  reported  in  ~2  Neb.  487,  where  the  injunction  was 
denied  and  the  former  decision  rever.sed  but  without  affect- 
ing the  rule  stated  in  the  early  part  of  the  foregoing  note. 
This  rule  was  reaffirmed  on  the  rehearing. 

Courts  of  this  State  will  not  review  the  i)rocess  or  pro- 
ceedings of  church  tribunals  for  the  purpose  of  deciding 
whether  they  are  regular  or  within  their  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction,  nor  will  they  attempt  to  decide  upon  the 
mend)eiship   or   spiritual   status   of   persons   belonging   or 


CIVIL  (\)URTs  i:u 

claiming  to  belong  to  religious  soeieties.  LJoiuuiiiii  v 
Muipby,  71  Neb.  487. 

Wbenever  tbe  questions  of  discipline  or  of  faitli,  or  eccle- 
siastical rule,  custom,  or  law,  bave  been  decided  by  tbe  high- 
est of  these  church  judicatories  to  which  the  matter  has  been 
carried,  the  legal  tribunals  must  accept  such  decisions  as 
final,  and  as  binding  on  them  in  their  aj>i)lication  to  the  case 
before  them.  I'ounder  v  Ashe,  44:  Nebr.  Ke.  (>7-!,  followed  in 
Powers  V  Bundy,  45  Neb.  208. 

The  utter  impolicy  of  the  civil  courts  attempting  to  inter- 
fere in  determining  matters  which  have  been  passed  upon  in 
church  tribunals,  arising  out  of  ecclesiastical  concerns,  is 
apparent.  It  would  involve  them  in  ditticulties  and  conten- 
tions, and  impose  uj)on  them  duties  which  are  not  in  har- 
mony with  their  proper  functions.  Before  a  court  could 
give  an  enlightened  ju<lgment  it  would  necessarily  have  to 
explore  the  whole  range  of  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the 
given  church,  and  survey  tlie  vast  held  of  the  Divine  Word. 
In  matters  of  litigation  where  the  title  to  ])ro])erty  comes 
in  contest,  the  rule  would  be  different,  as  it  is  the  imperative 
duty  of  the  courts  to  adjudicate  upon  the  civil  rights  of 
all  parties.  Happily,  in  this  country,  there  is  a  total  discon- 
nection betw'een  the  church  and  state,  and  neither  will  inter- 
fere with  the  other  when  acting  within  their  ai)pi-opriate 
spheres.  State  of  ^MisscMiri  ex  rel  Watson  v  I'^irris  et  al,  45 
Mo.  183.  The  rule  as  to  civil  rights  stated  in  the  foregoing 
note  was  ai)plied  in  the  same  case  to  the  elect i(tn  <»r  trustees 
of  Linden  wood  Female  Tollege,  by  whose  chartei-  the  trus- 
tees were  to  be  chosen  by  the  St.  Louis  I'resbytei-y.  This 
])resbytery  having  been  dissohcd  for  viobition  (»!'  a  decree 
of  the  General  Assenddy.  jiroliiltiling  (lie  enr(»llni('nt  t)f 
ministers  who  joiiu'd  in  the  movenient  rc])i-es('nlcd  l»y  the 
so-called  "Declaratioji  and  Testiniony."  picpaicd  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  deliverances  of  the  (Jenerai  Assenddy  on  certain 
political  (pH'stions.  It  was  held  in  this  case  that  trustees 
elected  by  such  dissoh«'(|  ])r('si>yt(My  acipiii-cd  no  title  to  the 
office,  and    lli;it    the   hnstees  cliosen   by  a   body  coni|M»sed   of 


i::l»        'I'lii:  <i\  iL  law  and  tiih  ciiikcii 

iiiciiiltfis  of  (lie  prcshylciy  w  lio  adlicrctl  to  the  (jcueral 
Assembly,  were  eiitillcd  lo  Hie  office. 

"^^'lleI•('  rules  and  rej^iilalioiis  are  iikkU?  by  the  j)ro])er 
church  fniicli(Hiaries,  and  such  rules  are  authorized  b}'  the 
laws  of  (he  order,  they  will  be  enforced  by  the  courts  when 
not  in  conlli<t  with  some  law  bearint;  ujton  the  subject  con- 
tained in  the  rules."  Alexander  v  Bowers,  7!)  S.  W.  (Tex.)  ;]4l'. 

A  civil  conrt  will  not  review  the  proceedings  and  findings 
of  an  ecclesiaslii  al  tribunal.  Irvine  v  Elliott,  20(>  I*a.  St. 
152;  see  also  Windham  v  T'lmer,  51)  So.  (Mis.s.)  810  (Baptist 
Church). 

The  civil  courts  will  not  enter  into  the  consideration  of 
church  doctrine  or  church  discipline,  nor  will  they  inquire 
into  the  regularit}'  of  the  proceedings  of  the  church  judi- 
catories having  cognizance  of  such  matters.  To  assume 
such  jurisdiction  would  not  only  be  an  attempt  by  the 
civil  courts  to  deal  with  matters  of  which  they  have  no 
special  knowledge,  but  it  would  be  inconsistent  with  com- 
plete religious  libert}',  uutrammeled  by  State  authority. 
On  this  principle  the  action  of  church  authorities  in  the 
deposition  of  pastors,  and  the  expulsion  of  members,  is 
final.  Where,  however,  a  church  controversy  necessarily 
involves  rights  growing  out  of  a  contract  recognized  by  the 
civil  law,  or  the  right  to  the  possession  of  property,  civil 
tribunals  cannot  avoid  adjudicating  these  rights,  under  the 
law  of  the  land,  having  in  view  nevertheless  the  implied 
obligations  imputed  to  those  parties  to  the  controversy  who 
have  voluutaril}'  submitted  themselves  to  the  authority  of 
the  church  by  connecting  themselves  with  it.  Morris  Street 
Baptist  Church  v  Dart,  07  S.  Car.  338. 

"Whenever  the  questions  of  discipline,  or  of  faith,  or 
ecclesiastical  rule,  custom,  or  law,  have  been  decided  by  the 
highest  church  judicatories  to  which  the  matter  has  been 
carried,  the  legal  tribunals  must  accept  such  decisions  as 
final  and  as  binding  on  them  in  their  application  to  the  case 
before  them."  Trustees  of  Trinity  M.  E.  Chu.  v  Harris, 
73  Conn.  216. 


CIVIL  COURTS  133 

Civil  Courts  exercise  uo  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.  It 
accepts  what  the  highest  ecclesiastical  authority  in  each 
church  promulgates  as  the  faith  and  practice  of  that  church. 
But  the  property  rights  of  all  churclies  are  within  the  pro- 
tection of  the  court.  Mt.  Helm  Baptist  Church  v.  -I  ones,  7!> 
Miss.  488. 

This  court  (chancer}')  does  not  sit  as  an  ecclesiastical 
tribunal,  or  determine  equality  in  tlic  distrihntion  of  tlie 
alms  or  aids  of  tlie  church  or  of  its  nicnibers.  It  has  uo 
jurisdiction  over  such  matters.  It  will  not  review  in  any 
manner  the  action  of  the  authorities  of  the  church,  in 
respect  to  subjects  within  the  exclusive  jui-isdiction  of  the 
church  or  its  appointed  agencies.  Stewart  v  Lee,  5  Del. 
Ch.  573. 

Church  Judicatories,  Limits  of  Judicial  Review.  Civil  courts 
will  not  revise  the  decisions  of  churches  or  religious  asso- 
ciations upon  ecclesiastical  matters,  but  they  will  interfere 
with  such  associations  when  i-ights  of  projx'i'ty  or  civil 
rights  are  involved.  And  when  conti-ovcrsies  of  which  the 
civil  courts  have  jurisdiction  arise  in  such  Ixxlics  tiie  courts 
will  inquire  as  to  the  ])urpose  for  which  they  were  instituted, 
and  the  rule  by  which  they  are  governed,  and  so  far  as  prac- 
ticable, they  will  be  given  effect.     I'arU  v  Chaplin,  90  la.  55. 

In  the  princii)al  (Connitt)  case  the  court  expressed  the 
opinion  that  in  all  cases  of  doubt,  when  there  is  not  clearly 
absence  of  jurisdiction,  the  decisions  of  Church  judicatories 
as  to  their  own  jurisdiction  in  ecclesiastical  matters  shouhl 
receive  great  weight.  Connitt  v  Kef.  rrotcstnul  Dutch 
Church,  54  N.  Y.  551. 

The  Civil  Courts  cannot  review  the  decisions  of  ect  Icsias- 
tical  judicatories  in  matters  jtroperly  within  their  prov- 
ince under  the  constitution  and  laws  or  regulations  <»!"  the 
church.  When  property  rights  are  involved  in  the  decisions 
of  the  church  judicatories,  such  decisions  may  be  reviewed 
by  the  civil  courts,  when  i)roi)erly  brought  heloic  them. 
Landis  v  Cami)l)ell,  7!>  Mo.  VSA. 

While    the    civil    tribunal    caniint    (listnilt    ilie    ad  ion    of 


l.'.l  'IMir;   CIS  IL    LAW     AM*   Tin;   CIHKCII 

fliiiicli  (•(•lilts  ii|)()ii  mailers  |»iii('l_v  rclij^ioiis,  still  civil  tri- 
bunals, as  a  matter  of  rij^lit  and  justice,  based  upon  prin- 
ciple and  antliorily  can  int("rfore,  and  rejudj^e  tlie  juflj^nienls 
of  spirit inil  courts  wiiere  j)roperty  beloni^inj;  to  cliurcli 
or<;anizations  and  dedicated  for  relij^ious  jjurposes  had  been 
taken  from  its  members  by  the  mere  aibitiary  will  of  those 
constituting;  the  judicatures  of  such  organizations  without 
re<ji;ai-d  to  any  of  the  regulations  or  constitutional  restraint 
by  which,  according  to  the  princijiles  and  objects  of  such 
organizations,  it  was  intended  that  such  property'  rights 
should  be  i)rotected ;  that  those  having  control  of  church 
property  under  a  ])articular  church  organization  have  no 
jtower  to  transfer  this  property  to  a  different  sect  or  de- 
nomination, or  divert  it  from  the  purposes  for  which  it  was 
dedicated,  when  in  violation  of  the  fundamental  law  upon 
which  the  organization  is  based.  Ivinkead  v  McKee,  9  Bush 
(Ky.)  5^5. 

Where  no  right  of  j)ropert3'  or  civil  right  is  invaded  all 
matters  of  a  religious  or  ecclesiastical  nature  are  left  en- 
tirely to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  ecclesiastical  judicatories, 
and  the  courts  will  not  interfere  with  the  decisions  of  the 
church  tribunal.  All  questions  of  faith,  doctrines,  aud  dis- 
cipline belong  exclusively  to  the  church  and  its  spiritual 
officers,  and  the  courts  will  neither  review  their  determina- 
tion on  the  facts  nor  their  decision  on  the  question  of  juris- 
diction.   Waller  v  Howell,  20  Misc.  Re.  (N.  Y.)  237. 

The  ecclesiastical  judicatories  having  had  jurisdiction  in 
the  case,  the  civil  courts  will  not  inquire  whether  they  have 
proceeded  according  to  the  law^s  and  usages  of  their  church, 
nor  whether  they  have  decided  the  matter  correctly.  It  is 
the  settled  law  of  this  country,  repeatedly  announced  by  the 
most  learned  judges  and  highest  courts,  that  in  such  cases 
the  civil  courts  must  take  the  decisions  of  the  ecclesiastical 
courts  as  final  and  binding  upon  the  j>arties.  Connitt  v 
Ref.  Protestant  Dutch  Church,  54  N.  Y.  551. 

AVIiile  the  courts  of  this  State  have  no  ecclesiastical  juris- 
diction whatever,  yet  they  are  charged  with  the  duty,  and 


CniL  COrKTS  185 

clothed  with  the  juiisfliction  of  in-olectiiij:;  jn-operty  rights 
of  lelij^ious  societies,  corpoiatioiis,  jnid  cliurclies,  as  well  as 
that  of  individuals,  and  thereby  of  necessity,  they  may  be 
compelled  to  decide  a  question  of  ecclesiastical  law  when 
that  law  becomes  a  fact  ui)on  which  i)ioi)erty  rights  depend. 
Smith  et  al  v  I'edigo  et  al  145  Ind.  oGl. 

"It  is  not  the  province  of  temporal  courts  to  assume 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.  The  decisions  of  jtroper  church 
tribunals  must  be  accei)ted  as  conclusive,  and  aw  not  sub- 
ject to  review."  Ai>i>lying  this  rule,  it  was  held  in  Auracher 
V  Yerger,  DO  Iowa  5.")S,  that  the  api)ointnienl  of  a  i)lace  for 
the  meeting  in  1801  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  I'^van- 
gelical  Association  of  North  America  in  accordance  with  the 
action  taken  by  the  General  Conference  of  18S7,  referring 
the  question  of  the  place  to  the  board  of  publication,  was 
merely  an  ecclesiastical  matter  which  involved  no  jiroperty 
or  civil  rights,  and  over  which  the  highest  judicatory  of  the 
church  has  supreme  control. 

The  civil  courts  have  jurisdiction  only  in  case  of  a  perver- 
sion of  trust;  on  matters  of  form  and  discipline,  the  decision 
of  the  supreme  authority  of  the  church  is  binding  on  the 
courts.    Griggs  v  Middaugh,  10  Ohio  Dec.  (>4.'J. 

It  is  the  settled  law  of  this  country  that  the  judgments 
of  the  judicial  tribunals  of  church  organizations  ui)on 
matters  of  faith  and  discipline,  and  the  general  polity  and 
tenets  of  the  chur-ch  are  binding  ui)on  the  civil  courts.  Civil 
courts  will  not  interfere  in  tliese  controversies,  even  in  cases 
where  rights  of  property  are  involved,  except  in  the  case  of 
a  clear  and  pali»able  violation  of  trust.  The  (pieslion  here 
involved  is  one  of  ownership  of  jn-ojterty.  These  proceedings 
are  instituted  to  recover  ])ossession  and  control  of  that 
projterty.  In  this  class  of  cases  the  conclusive  etVect  of 
church  authority,  acting  within  the  scojie  of  its  powers,  is 
fully  recognized  by  all  the  cases,  and  it  is  as  well  settled 
that  civil  courts  will  not  review  the  decisions  of  e<clesias- 
tical  judicatories  u]K>n  the  nicrils;  I»ul  ilie  prctposilion  that 
the  judgments  of  clnncli  judioiiiuit's  as  to  ilicii-  own  powers 


i;;(;        Tin:  ("i\  il  law  and  tiii;  cm  hch 

ur  jiiiisdict  ion,  or  llir  l;i\\  I  iilnrss  ol'  llicii-  iiicl  hods,  Jirc  (-(tli- 
cliisivc,  is  iiol  siisIiiIikmI  I>_v  rciisori  or  llic  weight  of  au- 
lliorily.     lU'-.iv  v  llcaslcy,  !>S  Midi.  L'7I). 

Civil  couils  ill  a<ljii<li(aHnj5  iipou  civil  and  jiroperty  rights 
in  those  classes  of  (•limcli  contentions  to  which  this  case 
l»('loii<;s  arc  IhhiimI  by  the  adjndications  of  tlie  ecclesiastical 
court  as  to  which  of  the  contending  faciions  in  the  church 
is  the  true  representative  of  the  church  and  which  faction  is 
(•utside  of  and  heyond  tlu*  ])ale  of  the  chni'ch,  and  that  the 
civil  courts  will  decree  the  title  of  church  property  to  beiong 
to  the  faction  in  the  church  which  the  ecclesiastical  courts 
have  held  to  be  the  true  repi-esentative  of  the  church.  Pres- 
byterian Church  V  Cumberland  Church,  245  111.  74. 

Courts  of  law  will  not  interpose  to  control  the  proceed- 
ings of  ecclesiastical  bodies  in  spiritual  matters  which  do 
not  atfect  the  civil  rights  of  individuals,  nor  will  they  inter- 
fere with  the  action  of  the  constituted  authorities  of  reli- 
gious societies  in  matters  ])urely  discretionary.  Jennings  v 
Scarborough,  oti  N.  J.  Law,  401. 

The  rule  of  action  which  should  govern  the  civil  courts, 
foun<led  in  the  broad  and  sound  view  of  the  relations  of 
church  and  state,  under  our  sj^stem  of  laws,  and  supported 
by  a  preponderating  weight  of  judicial  authority,  is  that 
whenever  the  questions  of  disci])line  or  of  faith  or  ecclesias- 
tical rule,  custom,  or  law  have  been  decided  by  the  highest 
of  these  church  judicatories  to  which  the  matter  has  been 
carried,  the  legal  tribunals  must  accept  such  decisions  as 
final  and  as  binding  on  them.  Watson  v  Jones,  13  Wall. 
()70-72G,  cited  in  Brundage  v  Deardorf,  92  Fed.  214,  aff'g 
55  Fed.  830. 

If  the  sentence  of  an  ecclesiastical  court  in  a  suit  for 
administration  turns  upon  the  question  of  which  of  the 
parties  is  next  of  kin  to  the  intestate,  such  sentence  is  con- 
clusive upon  that  question  in  a  subsequent  suit  in  the  court 
of  chancery  between  the  same  parties  for  distribution. 
Barrs  v  Jackson,  1  Phillips  Ch.  (Eng.)  582,  citing  for  a  simi- 
lar state  of  facts,  Bouchier  v  Taylor,  4  B.  P.  C.  (Eng.)  708. 


C1\1L  CUL'KTS  137 

It  belongs  not  to  the  civil  power  to  enter  into  or  review 
the  proceedings  of  a  si)iritual  court.  The  judgments  of 
religious  associations  bearing  upon  their  own  members  are 
not  examinable  here.  In  this  countr}-  no  ecclesiastical  body 
has  any  power  to  enforce  its  decisions  by  temjKiral  sanc- 
tions. Such  decisions  are  in  this  sense  advisory — they  are 
addressed  to  the  conscience  of  tliose  who  have  voluntarily 
subjected  themselves  to  their  sjtiiitual  sway,  and,  except 
when  civil  rights  are  dependent  iijtou  Ihcni,  can  have  no 
influence  beyond  the  tribunal  from  whicli  they  emanate. 
Where  a  civil  right  depends  upon  an  ecclesiastical  matter, 
it  is  the  civil  court,  and  not  the  ecclesiastical,  which  is  to 
decide.  The  civil  tribunal  tries  the  civil  rights,  and  no  more, 
taking  the  ecclesiastical  decisions  out  of  which  tiie  right 
arises  as  it  finds  them.  Every  competent  tribunal  must  of 
necessitj^  regulate  its  own  formulas,  llannon  v  l>relicr. 
1  Speer's  lOq.  (S.  (\)  S7. 

That  civil  co\ir1s  will  not  undertake  to  exercise  any  eccle- 
siastical authority,  or  to  review  i)roceedings  of  church  courts 
upon  questions  which  involve  matters  of  discii»line  or  the 
application  or  enforcement  of  their  own  laws,  is  well  settled 
in  this  country.    Clark  v  Brown,  lOS  S.  W.  (Texas)  421. 

Civil  courts  will  not  set  aside  the  decrees  and  orders  of 
ecclesiastical  courts,  involving  the  construction  of  their  own 
articles  of  faith  or  discii)line.  Fnchs  v  Moisel.  1()L'  Mich. 
357. 

In  New  York  the  legal  or  temporal  triininals  do  not   pro- 
fess to  have  any  jurisdiction  whatever  over  the  (linnli  as 
such,  except  so  far  as  necessary  to  jtrotect  the  cix  il  rights  of 
others  and  to  preserve  the  public  peace.    All  cinesiions  relai 
ing  to  faith  and   ])ractice  of  the  church   and    its   menduMs 
belong  to  the  church  judicatories  to  \\hich  they  have  volun- 
tarily subjected  themselves.      It    nnisl    i»e  a    plain   and   pal 
pable  abuse  of  j)Ower  which  will  indnce  a  com  t   to  intei-fere 
as  to  any  dispute  growing  out  of  religi(Mis  or  sedai-ian  con- 
troversies.    A  civil   judge  should    not    assnnie   llie   responsi 
bility    of   deciding    upon    the    coi  redness    of    ilie    religions 


i;;s         riii;  cix  IL  law   ANh  Tin:  cm  Kcii 

(cncls  (»r  ollicis,  cillicr  in  nutlcrs  ol'  fjiilli  or  ollierwise. 
Ii;i|>(iN(  (Minrcli,  Ilnrllonl  v  Willicrcll,  :;  I'iiij^e  Cli.  (N.  Y.) 
2!  Mi. 

Civil  Irilniiiiils  will  iiilcircic  in  niattors  coniKicted  with 
disjnitcs  or  ((tiilcsls  jirisinj;  out  of  thingH  ecclesiaHtical, 
only,  liowcvtM-,  in  so  far  as  it  is  necessarj'  to  ascertain  if  the 
governing  body  has  exceeded  its  power,  or,  in  other  words, 
has  acted  wilhin  the  scope  of  its  authority.  Batterson  v 
Thonii»soii,  8  Phila.  (I'a.)  251. 

Dillerences  of  opinion  as  to  local  church  management 
arose  in  the  society,  resulting  in  the  formation  of  two 
parties,  one  of  which  adhered  to  the  pastor  in  office  who  had 
been  chosen  to  this  position,  and  put  in  possession  of  the 
property.  A  question  as  to  the  local  situation  was  pre- 
sented to  the  presbytery,  from  which  it  appeared  tliat  the 
presbytery  recommended  that  the  pastoral  relation  be  sus- 
pended, and  that,  in  view  of  the  differences  in  the  local 
society,  his  longer  continuance  in  the  office  of  pastor  was 
unwise.  He  was  reelected  to  the  office  of  pastor,  as  a  stated 
supply  for  two  years,  but  it  was  claimed  that  this  meeting 
was  irregular  and  void,  for  the  reason  that  several  persons 
were  denied  the  ])rivilege  of  voting.  The  pastor's  party  pro- 
tested against  the  action  of  the  presbytery  in  recommending 
the  discontinuance  of  his  service,  and  they  withdrew  from 
the  i)resbytery.  The  i)resbytery  thereupon  declared  that 
this  withdrawal  amounted  to  a  secession  of  this  party,  and 
that  the  renuiining  members  constituted  the  true  local 
church.  The  civil  courts  declined  to  entertain  jurisdiction 
to  determine  this  (piestion  on  the  gi-ound  that  the  ecclesias- 
tical bodj'  having  jurisdiction  must  be  presumed  to  have 
decided  correctly,  and  the  question  could  not  be  reviewed  by 
civil  tribunals.    Gatf  v  Greer,  SS  Ind.  122. 

Civil  Rights  Only.  Civil  courts  in  this  country  have  no 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.  They  cannot  revise  nor  question 
ordinary  acts  of  church  discipline,  and  can  only  interfere  in 
church  controversies  where  civil  rights  or  the  rights  of  prop- 
erty are  involved.     Where  a  civil  right  depends  upon  some 


cr\'iL  coT'irrs  v.v.) 

matter  pertaining  to  ecclesiastical  allaii-s,  the  civil  trihiinal 
tries  the  civil  right,  and  nothing  more,  taking  the  ecclesias- 
tical decisions,  out  of  which  the  civil  right  has  arisen,  as 
it  finds  them,  and  accepting  those  decisions  as  matters 
adjudicated  by  another  jurisdiction.  The  civil  courts  act 
upon  the  theory  that  the  ecclesiastical  conrts  are  the  best 
judges  of  merely  ecclesiastical  (picstions.  aiid  of  all  matters 
which  concern  the  doctrines  and  discipline  of  the  respective 
religious  denominations  to  which  they  belorig.  Wiiite  Lick 
Quart.  Meeting,  etc..  v  White  Lick  Quart.  Meet,  etc.,  8!)  Ind. 
136.    See  also  Lamb  v  Cain,  ll't)  Ind.  48(1. 

While  the  courts  will  decide  nothing  affecting  the  ecclesi- 
astical rights  of  a  church,  yet  its  civil  i-ights  to  projierty  are 
subjects  for  their  examination,  to  be  determined  in  conform- 
ity to  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  the  principles  of  equity. 
Ferraria  v  Vasconcelhts,  2:5  111.  45t;,  31   111.  1. 

Prickett  v  Wells,  117  Mo.  502  involved  several  (lucslions 
arising  from  a  division  of  the  society,  resulting  in  a  claim 
of  title  and  possession  of  two  parties.  The  court  asserted 
the  general  rule  that  civil  courts  will  not  interfere  with  the 
affairs  of  a  religious  society  where  only  (piestions  of  <lis- 
cipline  are  involved,  and  which  did  not  iiichidc  liglils  of 
property. 

Over  the  church  as  such,  legal  tribnnals  do  not  have,  or 
profess  to  have,  any  jnrisdi«tion  whatever,  except  to  pro- 
tect the  civil  rights  of  others,  and  to  preserve  the  pnhlic 
peace.  All  questions  relating  to  the  laith  and  praitice  of 
the  church  and  its  members  belong  to  the  chnrch  jndicatnres 
to  which  they  have  voluntarily  snbjected  thcmsidNcs.  but  the 
civil  courts  will  interfere  with  chnr«-hes  and  religions  asso- 
ciations and  determine  upon  (ineslions  of  laith  and  practice 
of  a  chnrch  when  rights  of  propei-ty  and  civil  rights  are 
involved,  (irinies  Executors  v  Ilanii(»n.  and  (tlliers  .'.."»  hnl. 
1<)8. 

The  only  concern  oT  courls  willi  the  dill'ercnces  of  creed 
or  belief  within  or  between  i-eii^ions  org. mi/at  ions  is  when 
some  ]»roiK'i-ty  or  contract    liuhls  arc  invuKcd  and   demand 


140  T\\\:  (MX  IL   LAW   AM)  Till:  CIIIKCH 

|)i'(>t(Mlioii.  M;ii-i«'ii  V  I'yVim<,M'li(;il  Ci-ccd  ('oiij^i-cgation,  Mil- 
\ViniU«'r.  1:52  Wis.  (inO. 

The  civil  courts  will  interfere  with  churches  and  religious 
;isso(i;i lions  when  riglits  of  proj)erty  or  civil  rights  are 
involved.  Bill  Ihcy  will  not  revise  the  decisions  of  such 
associations  npon  ecclesiastical  matters,  merely  to  ascertain 
tlieii*  jni'isdiclioti.     Chase  v  Cheney,  58  111.  500. 

The  only  gronnd  ujton  which  the  supreme  court  can  exer- 
cise any  jurisdiction,  to  restrain  the  bishop  from  prosecut- 
ing a  sentence  of  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal  against  a  clergy- 
man, by  pronouncing  judgment  of  disj)Iacement  from  the 
ministry,  is  that  the  threatened  action  of  the  defendant 
may  affect  the  civil  rights  of  the  plaintiff,  for  the  protection 
of  which  he  has  a  ju'oper  recourse  to  the  civil  courts,  namely, 
exemption  from  taxation,  and  the  performance  of  certain 
civil  duties.  Conceding  that  this  is  sufficient  ground  for 
the  action  of  the  court,  the  only  cognizance  which  it  will 
take  of  the  case  is  to  inquire  whether  there  is  a  want  of 
jurisdiction  in  the  defendant  to  do  the  act  which  is  sought 
to  be  restrained.  The  court  will  not  review  the  exercise  of 
any  discretion  on  the  part  of  the  bishop,  nor  inquire  whether 
his  judgment,  or  that  of  the  subordinate  ecclesiastical  tri- 
bunal, is  justified  by  the  truth  of  the  case.  It  will  only 
inquire  whether  the  bishop  has  the  power  to  act;  not 
whether  he  is  acting  rightly.  Walker  v  Wainright,  16  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  486. 

The  right  of  civil  courts  to  interfere  in  ecclesiastical 
matters  is  considerably  limited.  The  general  rule  is  that 
such  right  exists  only  where  there  are  conflicting  claims  to 
church  property,  or  funds  or  the  use  of  them,  where  civil 
rights  are  involved.  Rector  St.  James  Church  v  Hunting- 
ton, 82  Hun  (N.  Y.)  31. 

The  civil  courts  will  not  revise  the  decisions  of  churches 
or  religious  associations  upon  ecclesiastical  matters,  but 
they  will  interfere  with  such  associations  when  rights  of 
property  or  civil  rights  are  involved.  Bird  v  St.  Mark's 
Church,  Waterloo,  62  la.  567. 


CI VI J.  COURTS  141 

See  Westiuiiister  ri'esbvteriaii  ('lunch  of  W.  L'lJnl  St.  v 
Findley,  -il  Misc.  ( N.  Y.)  ]7.'*>,  lor  a  stateineiif  ol"  the  rule 
that  civil  courts  will  not  interfere  in  ecclesiastical  matters 
unless  there  are  conliictinj;  claims  to  church  j)roi)erty  or 
funds,  or  the  use  of  them,  or  where  civil  rights  are  involved. 

''Courts  of  justice  in  this  State  (Louisiana)  sit  to  enforce 
civil  obligations  only,  and  never  attemjtt  to  exercise  juris- 
diction over  those  of  a  spiritual  charactci-."  Ali-ican  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  v  Clark,  25  La.  Ann.  I'Si*. 

Secular  courts  are  powerless  to  ]»ass  upon  (piestions  of 
ditt'erence  between  contending  factions  of  a  church  congivga- 
tion,  except  in  so  far  as  property  riglits  are  involved.  Chris- 
tian Church  of  Sand  Creole  v  Church  of  (Mu-ist  of  San<l 
Creek,  21!)  111.  50:1. 

Religious  societies  are  regarded  by  the  civil  authority  as 
other  voluntary  associations,  the  individual  members  and 
separate  bodies  of  ^^■llich  will  be  held  to  l)e  bound  by  tlie 
laws,  usages,  customs,  and  itiinciplcs  ^\•llich  are  accejjted 
among  them,  n])on  the  assuni]»tion  that  in  becoming  parts 
of  such  organisms  they  assented  to  l)e  bound  by  those  laws, 
usages,  and  customs,  as  so  many  stijiulalions  of  ;i  contract 
between  them.  It  is  oidy  by  so  regarding  the  associali(»n 
of  individuals  or  bodies  f(U'  religious  |)ur]ioses  that  llie  civil 
authority  in  this  country  can  interfei-e  at  all.  and  then  it 
can  interfere  only  so  far  as  may  be  luM-essary  to  decide  u|M)n 
and  protect  rights  of  ]»roi)ei-ty  flependent  upon  the  cond-act 
between  the  parties.  Ami  wlien  tlial  contract  has  been  con- 
strued by  the  ]iarties  the  conris  will,  as  in  (ttliei-  cases,  fol- 
low their  owii  construction.  I""'irst  rresbylerian  Cliui-ch. 
Louisville,  v  Wilson,  II  Unsli.  (Ky.)  252. 

The  judicial  |»o\ver  is  rehu'tant  to  interfei-e  in  maltei's  of 
religious  or  ecch'siastical  arrangement,  and  will  do  so  only 
when  rights  of  jn-operty  or  civil  lights  are  inv<ii\e(l.  Iinrlsc 
V  Rector,  etc..  Trinity  Church.  (»:'.  Misc.  (  N.  V.  i  i:\,  sustain- 
ing the  action  of  the  vestry  of  'i'linity  Church.  New  York, 
in  closing  St.  .lolin's  ('lia]iel. 

Consolidation  of  Churches.      In   Trustees  of  Tiinitv   M.   E. 


ML»        'nil:  CIS  iL  LAW  .\M>  'i'lii;  .in  kcii 

Cliiircli  \  Il:iiris.  7:'.  Coim.  L'HI,  it  wjis  held  lliat  tin;  aclioii 
(»r  l'.islio|>  W'aMcii  ((Hisolidatiiiji  three  Methodist  l']pisc(»|)al 
eh  III*  lies  ill  Xoiw  icli,  ('(Mill.,  niidcT  a  lunv  name  was  a  matter 
of  ecelesiaslical  law  and  pi-a<tiee  and  tlie  l)ishop's  decision 
was  hindin<;  on  tlie  <ivil  eoiirts  of  Connecticnt. 

Constitution  of  Church.  A  chnreh  constitution  generally 
acipiiesced  in  by  the  oflfieial  bodies  and  menibers  as  the 
snpi-eiiie  law  of  the  church  for  many  years,  during  which  no 
legal  steps  were  taken  to  determine  its  validity,  will  not  be 
declared  void  by  a  court,  even  upon  clear  proof  of  irregu- 
larity in  its  adoption,  except  when  justice,  morality,  or 
public  policy  requires  it.  All  questions  of  doctrine,  j)rac- 
tice,  and  jurisdiction  within  a  church  must  be  determined 
by  the  church  judicature,  and  the  secular  courts  of  this 
State  have  no  authority  to  adjudicate  upon  them.  The 
decision  of  the  highest  legislative  and  judicial  body  of  a 
church  that  an  old  confession  of  faith  and  constitution  had 
been  superseded  by  a  new  one  is  conclusive  upon  the  civil 
courts.    Kuns  v  Kobertson,  154  111.  ni)4. 

"I  cannot  recognize  any  constitution,  laws,  ordinances,  or 
sentences  of  any  ecclesiastical  tribunal,  or  of  any  voluntary 
society  as  having  any  efficacy  or  power  over  the  civil  rights, 
immunities,  or  contracts  of  individuals."  Smith  v  Nelson, 
18  Vt.  511. 

Acquiescence  in  and  use  of  the  constitution  of  a  church 
for  more  than  fifty  years  is  conclusive  on  the  civil  courts 
as  to  its  validity.     I'liiloniath  College  v  Wyatt,  27  Or.  390. 

Creed.  It  is  not  within  the  ])rovince  of  any  dei>artme!it 
of  the  government  to  settle  ditl'erences  in  creeds,  and  the 
courts  ought  not  to  arrogate  to  themselves  the  jtower  to 
restrain  or  control  the  free  exercise  of  any,  so  long  as  this 
shall  be  harmless.  It  is  not  for  them  to  determine  what 
ought  or  ought  not  to  be  an  essential  element  of  religious 
faifh.     State  of  Iowa  v  Amana  Society.  1.S2  la.  804. 

Criterion.  Before  civil  authority  the  question  is,  not 
which  party  has  the  authority,  but  which  is  right  according 
to  the  law  bv  whicli  the  bodv  has  hitherto  consented  to  be 


CIVIL  COURTS  143 

governed.  The  majority  may  direct  and  control  consistently 
with  the  particular  and  {general  laws  of  the  organization, 
but  not  in  violation  of  them.  Sutter  v  Kef.  Dutch  Ch.  (5 
Wright  (Pa.)  508. 

Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church.  The  (jencral  AssiMiihly 
of  the  Cumberland  I'resbyterian  Church  had  jtower,  ujjon 
the  approval  of  two  thirds  of  the  jjrcsbyteries  represented 
in  it,  to  change  the  Confession  of  Faith.  An  action  having 
been  taken  whereby  it  was  declared  that  the  change  made 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  mother  church  (Presbyte- 
rian Church  of  United  States)  removed  all  obstacles  to 
reunion  and  union  of  the  two  bodies,  that  decision  is  linal 
ui)on  the  civil  courts.  The  General  Assend)ly  of  the  <'>unber- 
land  Church  had  authority  to  determine  from  the  provisions 
of  the  constitution  whether  it  had  the  jtower  to  enter  into 
the  union  with  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  having  decided 
that  it  had  such  authority,  and  having  acted  u])oii  tliat 
decision,  the  civil  courts  have  no  power  to  review  that 
action.  The  General  Assend)ly,  tlic  highest  court  of  the 
church  to  whicli  the  decision  of  these  questions  is  committed, 
decided  that  all  practical  ditferences  between  the  articles 
of  faith  of  the  two  churches  had  l)een  eliminated,  and  there 
existed  no  reason  why  the  union  should  not  be  elfected. 
That  court  had  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  question,  and 
having  decided  it,  tliere  is  no  ground  for  action  by  this 
court.  The  court  stated  the  same  rule  as  to  the  admission 
of  Kegroes  to  participate  in  cert;iin  ]»roceedings  in  conrls 
of  the  Presbyterian  Clnircli.  wliidi  practice  was  not  per- 
mitted by  the  Cumberland  ('lini»Ii.  Tills  (|neslion  conld 
not  be  reviewed  by  tlie  civil  c(»iirts.  Hrown  v  Clai-k.  10- 
Texas  :\2:i. 

Fussell  v  Hail,  -;'>:;  111.  7;'..  was  an  action  brctnglit  lo 
restrain  the  General  Assend)ly  of  the  Cumberland  I'l-esby- 
terian  Church  from  consummating  a  proposed  union  with 
the  Presbyterian  Church  according  to  negotiations  initiated 
in  11)08,  and  ajiparently  ratified  in  P.ion.  The  nbje(  I  of  the 
bill  is  to  have  a   court  of  cliancei-y,  by   its  process,  assume 


1 II         i'lii:  ('i\iL  i-A\v  AM)  'I'lii;  <iiri;(ii 

(•((iilntl  i»r  tlic  jictioii  (»r  :iii  (•(■(•lcsi;ist  ical  li-ihmial,  declare 
tlic  rxiciil  (iC  its  jiiiisdiclioii,  cxaiiiiiK*  the  rejjularity  of  \\n 
pi-()ce('«Iiii},fs,  and  revise;  its  jnd<;iiieiils.  Tlie  civil  courts  <l('al 
only  with  <ivil  or  ]>roperty  rights.  They  have  no  jurisdic- 
tion of  i-cligious  or  ecclesiastical  controversies.  Religious 
freedom  cannot  be  maintained  if  tlie  civil  courts  may  inter- 
fere in  matters  <d"  clinrcli  organization,  creed,  and  discii)line, 
construe  the  constitution,  canons  or  rules  of  the  church, 
and  reguhite  and  revise  its  trials  and  the  i>roceedings  of 
its  i;(»veining  bodies.  The  civil  courts  afford  no  remedy 
for  any  abuse  of  ecclesiastical  authority  which  does  not 
follow  a  civil  or  [troperty  right.  Church  tribunals  ought  to 
perform  their  lunctious  honestly,  impartially,  and  justly, 
with  due  regard  to  their  constitutional  powers,  sound 
nH)i'als,  ami  the  rights  of  all  who  are  interested;  but  if 
tyranny,  fraud,  opi)ressiou,  or  corrui)tiou  prevail,  no  civil 
remedy  exists  for  such  abuse,  excei)t  where  it  trenches  upon 
some  ]»roperty  or  civil  right.  The  ordiuaiy  courts  have  no 
cogni/ance  of  the  rules  of  a  religious  organization  or  other 
voluntary  association,  and  cannot  consider  whether  they 
have  been  rightly  or  wrongly  applied.  See  also  the  article 
on  the  (Mnnberland  I'resbyterian  Church. 

Diversion  of  Church  Funds.  In  Gable  v  Miller.  10  Paige 
Ch.  (N.  Y.)  G27  it  was  held  that  the  court  of  chancery  had 
jurisdiction  to  prevent  a  diversion  of  the  temporalities  of 
a  church  from  the  purposes  for  which  they  were  given  by  the 
donors,  and  to  re(]uire  them  to  be  apjn-opriated  to  the  sup- 
l»ort  of  that  form  of  worshij)  and  to  the  teaching  of  those 
doctrines  for  which  they  were  originally  intended. 

Diversion  of  Property.  When  an  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tion acquires  property  by  deed  or  will,  or  other  instrument, 
and  the  instrument  in  expre.ss  terms,  provides  that  the  prop- 
erty shall  be  devoted  to  the  teaching,  support,  and  spread 
of  some  specilic  form  of  doctrine  or  belief,  the  civil  courts 
have  authority  to  interfere  in  the  affairs  of  the  organization 
lor  the  [)urpose  of  preventing  a  diversion  of  the  property 
from  the  use  to  which  it   was.  bv  the  instrument,  devoted. 


ClA'lL  CUL'KTS  115 

But  wLere  property  is  acqiiiied  l)y  an  ectlesiaslical  (jigaii 
izatiou,  aiid  tlieiv  is  iiolhing  in  the  insli'imuMit  iindcr  wliicli 
the  title  passes  lo  the  orgaiiizalion.  or  lo  inistets  in  its 
behalf,  whicli  inii>()ses  a  limitation  n|ton  tlie  uses  to  which 
the  propeily  shall  l»e  devoted,  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  it 
was  the  iutenli<m  ol"  the  donor  tiiat  the  property  was  to  be 
devoted  to  religions  purposes,  in  such  manner  and  in  such 
way  as  the  governing  body  of  the  organization,  whatever  it 
may  be,  shall,  uuder  its  coustitution  and  rules,  determine; 
aud  so  long  as  any  existing  religious  organization  can  be 
asserted  to  be  that  organization,  or  its  regular  legitimate 
successor,  it  is  entitled  to  the  use  of  the  property. 

In  case  of  a  schism  in  such  an  organization  no  in(|uiry 
will  be  had  into  the  existing  religious  opinions  of  liiose 
who  comprise  the  legal  and  regular  organization  ;  the  ]»ioper 
inquiry  is.  Which  of  the  two  factions  constitute  liie  clinich? 
aud  those  who  adhere  to  the  acknowledged  organization  are 
entitled  to  the  use  of  the  property,  whether  adhering  or  not 
to  the  doctrines  originally  professed.  ^lack  v  Kime,  Il!l> 
(la.  1. 

Doctrine.  In  all  matters  of  laitli  ;iiid  dociiine  chnrches 
are  left  to  speak  for  themselves.  When  rights  of  property 
are  iu  question  civil  courts  will  iiupiire  whether  the  organic 
rules  and  forms  of  proceeding  prescribed  by  the  ecclesias- 
tical body  have  been  followed,  and  if  followed,  whether  they 
are  in  conflict  with  the  law  of  the  laml.  A  priest  in  the 
Kouuin  Catholic  Church,  who  i-eceives  no  staled  salaiy.  hnt 
derives  an  income  from  pew  rents,  Snnday  collections,  snb- 
scrijdions,  and  olferings  h;is  :i  prctperty.  in  these  sources  of 
income.  His  profession  is  his  property,  ami  the  priest  was 
not  (udy  deju-ived  of  his  right  of  properly  as  jtastor  <»r  that 
particular  church,  but  he  was  also  prohibited  from  exercis- 
ing any  pastoral  functions  as  a  means  of  sniqiort  elsewhere. 
O'Hara  v  Stack,  1)0  l*a.  St.  477;  bnl  see  this  (ase  on  appeal 
in  1)8  l*a.  213,  where  the  foregoing  decision  is  e.\|.lained. 

In  People  v  Steel,  2  Barb.  (N.  V.  i  :!lt7.  the  ln';id  note  con 
tains  the  statement    th.it    c(»uits  can   only   iiKpiire   into   the 


1  h;        tiii;  cinil  law  and  Tin:  ciii  kcii 

IciH'ts  ]H(»iiiiil;r;i((Ml  in  ;i  pjiil iciilar  clnircli,  in  connoction 
with  ;i  y\'^\\{  <»!'  in-opcily,  «»r  ii  trnst  io  be  iMiniinisfcicd. 
'I'licy  li;i\<'  no  iiowcr  to  dt'lciininc  .is  to  llic  s(i-i|»t  ur;ii  linlli 
(»r  I  Intsc  lends. 

Tlic  conils  of  lliis  roiinli-y  li;iv«'  no  powci-  to  dcierniine 
lor  i('li<;ions  Ixxlics  ecclesiastical  or  doctiinal  ijuestions, 
and  they  have  never  evinced  a  disposition  to  invade  that 
domain,  and  will  only  iiupiire  into  such  questions  when 
propeity  rij^hls  become  involved  and  are  the  subject  of  lit- 
ij^ation,  and  then  only  so  far  as  to  determine  those  rijjhts. 
I'eace  v  First  Christian  Church.  ^McCJrej^or,  20  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  85. 

Civil  courts  will  deal  with  questions  of  church  doctrine 
and  beliels  oidy  in  so  far  as  it  becomes  necessary  so  to  do  to 
determine  civil  rights.  Where  a  dispute  arises  as  to  which 
of  two  bodies  represents  a  particular  church  in  trust  for 
which  property  has  been  granted,  a  question  of  ecclesiastical 
identity  arises,  and  those  who  claim  that  the  trust  has  been 
violated  must  show  that  their  oj)ponents  have  so  far  de- 
lta rted  from  the  fundamental  princii)les  of  the  church  in 
question  as  to  be  in  effect  no  longer  members  thereof.  Itter 
V  Howe,  2;?  Out.  Aj.p.  Rej).  25G. 

It  would  be  an  unseemly  thing  for  the  secular  courts  to 
assume  to  themselves  the  right  to  decide  in  the  first  instance 
whether  a  certain  doctrine  or  tenet  of  faith  possessed  and 
lu-acticed  by  one  religious  organization  was  contrary  to  the 
organic  and  fundamental  doctrines  and  creed  of  another 
religious  organization.  "Wehmer  v  Fokenga.  57  Neb. 
510. 

If  church  property  is  intended  to  be  used  to  promote  the 
teaching  of  jKirticular  religious  doctrines  and  an  attem|»t 
is  made  to  divert  such  properly  to  the  support  of  ditferent 
doctrines,  civil  courts  should  interpose  for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  such  trusts  into  execution  according  to  the  inten- 
tion of  the  donors;  and  in  case  of  a  clear  violation  of  such 
a  trust  the  courts  are  bound  to  interfere  on  the  application 
of  a  minoiity  against  a  majority  of  the  congregation.    Miller 


CIVIL  COUKTS  147 

V  Gable,  2  Deu.  (N.  Y.)  4!J2.  Appaieully  reversiii-,'  10  I'aige 
(N.  Y.)  027,  but  see  note  iu  Deuio  p.  570. 

It  is  not  within  the  province  of  courts  to  (leteriuine  which 
of  two  factions  is  right  from  a  biblical  or  theological  point 
of  view,  nor  which  conforms  to  the  faith  originally  adopted 
by  the  church,  except  when  that  is  in  exi)licit  terms  made  a 
condition  of  the  donation.  First  Baptist  Church,  Paris  v 
Fort,  93  Tex.  215. 

Wliile  adherence  to  the  doctrines  a<h)pte<l  l)y  Hie  congre- 
gations (Lutheran)  may  be  considered  a  condition  of  be- 
coming or  remaining  a  member,  it  is  not  so  with  any  new 
matter  of  doctrine  that  may  arise,  or  with  any  lionest  inter- 
pretation of  the  statements  of  former  doctrines.  A  civil 
court  could  not  determine  that  by  adopting  any  particular 
opinion  of  such  new  doctrine,  or  sucli  int('r])rctation  a  mem- 
ber, ipso  facto,  ceases  to  be  a  member  of  the  congregation 
so  as  to  lose  his  rights  in  the  corporation.  Trustees,  East 
Norway  Lake  Norwegian  ICvangelical  Lutheran  Churcli  and 
others  v  Halvorson,  42  Minn.  503. 

Questions  of  dogmatical  theology  are  not  within  tlie 
jurisdiction  of  civil  courts,  but  courts  may  determine 
whether  a  complaint  exists  as  to  a  change  of  religious  belief 
by  the  minister.  The  truth  and  importance  of  the  question 
are  within  the  jurisdiction  recognized  by  the  uniform  and 
immemorial  usage  of  congregational  churches.  Courts  have 
no  means  of  determining  })oints  of  doctrine.  Burr  v  Sand- 
wich, 0  Mass.  277. 

It  is  not  the  province  of  courts  of  justice  to  deci«k',  or 
to  inquire  what  system  of  religious  faith  is  most  consistent, 
or  what  religious  doctrines  are  true,  or  what  are  false,  in 
any  case,  and  it  seldom  becomes  necessary  for  courts  to  dis- 
cuss, or  to  examine  the  creeds,  or  confessions  or  systems  of 
faith  of  the  dilferent  religious  sects  in  detennining  (pies- 
tious  of  law,  excei)t  in  cases  where  they  are  c:illeil  upon 
to  see  that  a  trust  or  charity  is  administere*!  a»< ordiug  to 
the  intention  of  the  original  f(»un(lers.  Hale  v  leveret  t,  .""tiJ 
N.  H.  1. 


I  IS        'riii;  (IN  II.  LAW  ANh  tin;  (iii  kcii 

('i\il  ((Hirls  iifsrr  ;issillii('  llir  ;il»str;icl  tliitli  or  liilsity  (»f 
iiiiv  n'li;;i<)us  (loch-iiic.  The  iiiosi  llicy  «;iii  <l<t  is,  w  licii 
ri;^lils  of  properly  ;ir('  (IcpciKlciil  <»ii  jullici-ciice  to,  oi-  Iciicli- 
in;;  of  :i  piii't  icnhir  rcliiiions  doilriiic,  1o  cxniiiiiic  wlial,  as 
:i  lact.  liic  (loctiiiir  is,  ami  wiictlici-,  as  a  fart,  tlic  parti<ulai- 
person  adheres  to  or  teaclies  it.  Wlien  tlie  contrait  pro 
vides.  or  by  iiii|>li(atioii  eoiiteniplates,  that  what  is  accord 
in^  to  or  consisteni  with  the  particidar  doctrine  shall  he 
determined  hy  some  religions  jndicatory,  tlie  determination 
of  snch  jndicatory,  dnly  nnide,  when  th(;  matter  is  |»roperly 
l>rouj!,lit  before  il,  is  conclnsive  on  tlie  civil  conrts.  Trustees, 
I'^ast  Norway  J.,ake  Norwegian  I'-yan^elical  Lntlieran 
C'luirch,  and  otlxM-s  v  llalvorson,  42  Minn.  r)0.'5. 

Differences  of  opinion  having-  arisen  on  doctrinal  ques- 
tions and  as  to  church  government,  the  majority  expelled 
the  minority.  This  action  was  sustained,  and  it  was  hehl 
that  there  was  no  right  of  appeal  to  civil  courts.  Bennett  v 
Morgan,  1 12  Ky.  ~)\'2. 

Bowie's  Successor.  In  Lewis  v  Voliva,  154  111.  App.  48,  the 
court  declined  to  consider  the  (piestion  as  to  who  was  tlie 
rightful  successor  to  John  Alexander  Dowie  as  the  leader 
of  tlie  Cliristian  Catholic  Apostolic  Church  of  Zion  founded 
by  him.  Two  persons  claimed  the  leadership  by  virtue  of  an 
alleged  apixtintment  l)y  Mr.  Dowie  as  his  successor.  The 
court  said  that  if  there  was  an  organized  body  of  persons 
who  constituted  the  church,  it  must  be  left  for  that  body  to 
determine  this  ijuestion  in  accordance  with  its  laws  and 
usages,  free  from  interference  by  the  courts.  The  court  held 
that  there  was  no  property  (piestion  involved  in  the  case. 

Ecclesiastical  Questions.  It  would  be  quite  unseemly  as 
well  as  detrimental  to  the  best  interests  and  harmony  of 
religious  socii'ties  if  courts  should  interfere  with  their  in- 
ternal alVaiis  when  no  properly  rights  are  involved,  sinqdy 
because  the  i*egularity  of  their  i)roceedings  may  be  open  to 
question  by  some  di.saffected  |>arly.  People  ex  rel  Blomquist 
V  Nappa.  SO  Mich.  4S4. 

Civil  tribunals  cannot  n'\ise  or  question  ordinary  acts  of 


CIVIL  COURTS  149 

cburcli  discipline  or  excision,  but  iii;i,v  decide  coiiUictiuj^ 
claims  of  the  parties  to  the  church  projterty,  and  the  use  of 
it.    Shannon  v  Frost,  42  Ky.  25.*!. 

As  to  the  rule  that  civil  courts  will  not  interfere  in  eccle- 
siastical matters,  see  Kodf^ers  v  Burnett,  108  Tenu.  173  fol- 
lowing Nance  v  Bushby,  \)\  Tenn.  :'A)7). 

See  Chase  v  Cheney,  58  111.  5(1!)  lor  a  discussion  of  the 
principles  ai)plied  by  civil  couits  in  considering  questions 
relating  to  ecclesiastical  a  Hairs.  The  case  reiterates  tiie 
doctrines  frequently  cited  in  lliese  notes.  See  this  case  also 
page  v>04  for  a  collection  of  anthorities  relating  to  the  juris- 
diction of  civil  courts  in  ecclesiastical  matters. 

Elections.  Courts  of  law  will  interpose  to  control  the 
proceedings  of  ecclesiastical  bodies  when  a  right  to  j)roperty 
is  involved,  but  in  no  other  instances.  A  court  of  law  will 
inquire  into  the  regularity  of  the  election  of  trustees  of  a 
religious  cor])oration,  to  whom  the  property  of  the  corjjora- 
tion  is  committed,  and  will  determine  the  qualifications  of 
the  voters  who  are  allowed  to  vote  at  such  an  election.  It 
will  also,  when  the  right  to  jiropertj'  is  in  issue,  institute  an 
inquiry  into  the  doctrines  and  opinions  of  a  religious  society 
as  facts  upon  which  the  ownership  of  proi)erty  may  depend. 
But  with  resj)ect  to  s])irilual  matters,  ami  the  administra- 
tion of  the  si)iritual  and  tem]>oral  affairs  of  the  church,  not 
afifecting  the  civil  rights  of  individuals  or  the  property  of 
the  corporation,  the  ecclesiastical  courts  and  governing 
bodies  of  the  religious  society  have  exclusive  jurisdiction, 
and  their  decisions  are  final.  A  court  of  law  will  not 
interfere  with  the  rules  of  a  voluntaiy  religious  society 
adopted  for  the  regulation  of  its  own  alVairs,  unless  to  pro- 
tect some  civil  right  which  is  infringed  by  tlieir  operation. 
Livingston  v  Trinity  Chni-ch,  Trenton,  45  N.  J.  Law  'SAO. 

In  Michigan  it  was  held  tliat  a  ( onrt  could  not  inquire 
into  the  regularity  of  an  election  of  a  deacon  in  the  l»utch 
Keformed  Church  of  Holland.  Attorney  (Jeneral  ex  rel  Ter 
Vree  v  Geerlings,  55  ^lich.  5()2. 

Expulsion  of  Members.     Considering  a  (luestion  relating  to 


ir,()  Till:  (IN' II.    LAW   AND  '11  Ii:  (III    KCII 

llic  cxiMilsioii  (if  ;i  iiH'iiihci'  (iC  llir  lt;i|ilist  ("iiiircli  :it  Moss 
i'niiil,  Mississip|ii.  Ilic  coiirl  snid  tiiis  society  w;is  a  piirf 
ilciiMM-racv.  Its  (N'Icriiiinatioii  of  (|ii<'stioiis  of  doctriiK;  aii'l 
<liscipliiu;  is  exclusive  and  Dual.  Tiicn^  is  no  ajipcal  to  any 
s\i|»('T'ior  ecclesiastical  coiii-t,  and  ovei-  tliin}i;s  s]»iiitiial  or 
ecclesiastical,  tlie  civil  c(»ui-ts,  ordinarily,  may  not  tnke 
jurisdiction.  The  civil  <>()vernnient  must  be  free  fnun  all 
ecclesiastical  interfei-ence,  and  tlie  Cliurcli  of  Jesus  f'hrist, 
except  in  ju-operty  rights,  is  not  to  be  controlled  by  Stah; 
authority.  J>ees  v  3Ioss  Point  Baptist  Churcli,  17  So.  Kep. 
1.  (Miss.). 

Courts  cannot  and  will  not  supervise  or  review  the  action 
of  any  religious  society  as  to  whether  in  excluding-  members 
they  acted  wrongfully  or  justly.  Iglehart  v  Kowe,  20  Ky. 
L.  kep.  821. 

''AVe  cannot  decide  wiio  ought  to  be  members  of  the 
church,  nor  whether  the  excommunicated  members  have 
been  jiislly  or  unjustly,  regularly  or  ii-regularly  cut  off  from 
the  body  of  the  church.  We  must  take  the  fact  of  exjtulsion 
as  conclusive  proof  that  the  persons  expelled  are  not  now 
members  of  the  re])udiating  church;  for,  whether  right  or 
wrong,  the  act  of  excommunication  must,  as  to  the  fact  of 
membership,  be  law  to  this  court.  Having  once  associated 
themselves  with  many  others,  as  an  organized  band  of  ])ro- 
fessing  Christians,  they  thereby  voluntarily  subjected  them- 
selves to  the  disciplinary  and  even  exj)ulsive  power  of  that 
body.  The  voice  of  the  majority  has  ]»revailed  against  them. 
They  by  that  tiat  of  their  nuMubership  ceased  to  be  members 
of  that  association,  and  with  the  loss  of  their  membershi]) 
they  have  lost  all  the  privileges  and  legal  rights  to  which,  as 
members,  they  were  ever  entitled.  Their  only  remedy  is, 
therefore,  in  their  own  bosoms,  in  a  consciousness  of  their 
own  moral  rectitude,  and  in  the  consolations  of  that  reli- 
gious faith  and  those  Christian  graces  which,  under  all 
temporal  trials,  will  ever  sustain  the  faithful  Christian  and 
adorn  the  jiathway  of  his  earthly  pilgrimages."  Bethany 
Cong.  Ch.  V  Morse.  1.~>1  Iowa  521.    Cited  Hendryx  v  People's 


CIN'IL  CUUKTS  151 

United  Cluucli,  42  Wash.  o'Mi  and  Shaiiiioii   \    Frost,  :\  13. 
Mon.  (Ky.j  25:{. 

l*eople  V  Ki-iste  Ulaszkoweer  Kraiikeii  riitcistut/iinj^s 
Verein,  50  Misc.  (N,  Y.)  ;;04,  57  Misc.  «ii',  consideis  the 
power  of  civil  courts  to  review  and  revise  the  action  of 
religious  societies,  asserting  tlie  general  rule  of  noninter- 
ference, but  an  excei)tion  was  applied  in  this  case  because 
the  societ}^  was  also  a  benevolent  or  benefit  society,  with 
sjtecial  ])r()visions  for  the  welfare  of  its  members;  theivfore 
the  court  assumed  jurisdiction  to  determine  the  validity  of 
the  expulsion  of  a  member. 

If  it  api)ears  that  there  is  a  fi-audulent  scheme  to  ex])e\ 
meud)ers  so  as  to  obtain  control  of  the  i>roi)erty  of  the  organ- 
ization and  divert  it  from  its  original  channel,  the  law  will 
not  ])ermit  the  fraud  to  be  consummated.  Notwithstand- 
ing the  rule  of  the  organization  to  ])ermit  an  expulsion  in 
proi)er  cases,  there  is  an  implied  obligation  or  contract  that 
the  members  will  be  fairly  treated,  and  that  good  faith  will 
be  maintained  between  them.  Courts  will  not  assume  to 
decide  purely  ecclesiastical  questions,  and  sul)stitute  their 
views  for  the  views  of  the  ecclesiastical  aulhorities  oi-  judi- 
catories. If  mend)ers  are  ex]»elled  for  a  fraudulent  jmrpose 
to  carry  out  a  fraudulent  sciienie.  the  expulsion  is  a  void 
act,  an<l  of  no  force  or  ell'ect  whatever.  Hendrvx  v  Teople's 
United  Chunli,  Spokane,  \'2  >\'asli.  :j:;(i. 

Friends,  Form  of  Government.  In  Field  v  I'iel<l.  :i  Wt-nd. 
(N.  Y.)  .■»!)4,  tlu;  coui't  took  cognizance  of  the  foj-m  of  govern- 
ment adopted  by  the  Society  of  i-'iiends,  especially  as  to  the 
method  of  organizing  and  ((Midncl  ing  business  meetings,  and 
considei'cd  theelVect  of  a  di\ision  of  the  Society  in  iSilS.  See 
the  article  on  l^riends. 

Heresy.  The  law  knows  no  heresy,  and  is  comniitted  to  the 
su])port  of  no  (h)gnia.  I'veryone  has  the  legal  right  to  eiitei- 
tain  any  religious  belief,  to  practic**  any  religions  principle, 
and  to  teach  any  religious  doctrine  wliicli  (l(»es  not  violate 
the  laws  of  morality  or  ]>i'operty,  ami  whiih  does  not  in- 
fringe the  personal    rights  of  others,   which    may   .veem    to 


i.vj        'I'm;  (IN  II.  LAW  A.xh  'riii;  rin  k<"ii 

him  ri^'lil  ;iml  |»n»|»ci-,  willmiil  ;iii\  iiit('i-r('|-fii<-(!  Iroiii  I  luj 
coiirls.  Tlic  l;i\v  rccojiiiizcs  the  li^lil  of  the  peoi)le  to  organ- 
ize voliiiitiirv  r('ii;;i()us  associal ions,  to  assist  in  the  dis- 
sciiiiiialion  of  any  and  all  relijjjions  doctrines,  with  the  excep- 
tions ahove  named,  and  to  create  tribunals  loi-  the  decision 
of  c<mli<)verted  ([neslions  of  faith,  and  for  ecclesiastical 
•government  of  all  the  indi\idnal  members,  congregations, 
and  ollicers  witliin  I  lie  general  association.  Jjand)  v  Cain, 
\'2U  Ind.  48t;. 

The  civil  tribnnal  j)ossesses  no  authority  whatever  to 
determine  ecclesiastical  matters  on  a  question  of  heresy, 
or  as  to  what  is  orthodox  or  unorthodox  in  matters  of  belief. 
Wilson  V  Presbyterian  Church,  .John's  Island,  2  Kich.  l']q. 
(S.  C.)    \U'J. 

Judicial  Notice.  "The  canons,  rubrics,  or  rules  of  this  or 
any  other  church  among  us,  are  not  laws;  they  are  merely 
regulations  for  the  conduct  of  its  ministers  and  members, 
dei)endent  for  their  force  upon  vows  of  the  one  and  the  con- 
sciences of  the  other,  so  far  as  they  are  within  the  limits  of 
the  rightful  powers  of  such  bodies.  We  know,  nothing  of 
them  judicially."  The  court  cannot  take  judicial  notice 
of  the  meaning  of  the  terms  ^institution"  and  "induction" 
as  ai)plied  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  nor  of 
any  rights  or  disabilities  which  might  result  from  their 
observance  or  neglect.  Youngs  v  Kansom,  ol  Barb.  (N.  Y.  i 
40. 

The  court  will  not  take  judicial  notice  of  the  civil  rights 
and  powers  of  a  Konuin  Catholic  Church.  Baxter  v  Mc- 
Donnell, 155  Js\  Y.  8:5. 

Jurisdiction,  True  Rule.  The  true  ground  why  civil  courts 
do  not  interfere  with  the  decrees  of  ecclesiastical  courts, 
where  no  property  riglits  are  involved,  is  not  because  such 
decrees  are  final  and  conclusive,  but  because  they  have  no 
jurisdiction  whatever  in  such  matters,  and  cannot  take  cog- 
nizance of  them  at  all,  whether  they  have  been  adjudicated 
or  not  by  those  tribunals.  This  princii)le  forms  the  fouuda- 
tion  of  religious  liberty  in   republican  governments.     The 


CIVIL  COIKTS  153 

civil  jiiithoi-ilios  Ikivc  ik*  p(»\vrr  to  pass  or  eufoiTC  laws 
abridging  the  lit'Cflom  of  ihc  citizen  in  this  regard,  and 
hence,  in  matters  ]»nrely  religious  or  ecclesiastical,  the  civil 
courts  have  no  jni-isdiclion.  A  deposed  minister  or  an  ex- 
communicated member  of  a  chnrcli  cannot  appeal  to  the 
civil  courts  for  i-edress.  They  can  l<»ok  alone  to  their  own 
judicatories  for  reliel",  and  must  abide  the  judgment  ol'  their 
highest  courts  as  tinal  and  conclusive.  JJui  when  property 
rights  are  concerned,  the  ecclesiastical  courts  have  no  i»ower 
whatever  to  pass  on  them  so  as  to  bind  the  civil  courts.  If 
they  expel  a  mendter  from  his  church,  ami  he  feels  himself 
aggrieved  in  his  rights  of  jti-operty  by  the  expulsion,  he  may 
resort  to  the  civil  courts,  and  they  will  not  consider  them- 
selves precluded  by  the  judgment  of  expulsion,  but  will 
examine  into  the  case  to  see  if  it  has  been  i-egidarly  made 
ui)on  due  notice,  and  if  they  tin<i  it  to  be  duly  made,  they 
will  let  it  stand,  otherwise  they  will  disregard  it,  and  give 
the  proper  relief.  Watson  v  Garvin.  r)t  ^fo.  353;  see  also 
Dismukes  v  State,  5S  So.  1!)5. 

Jurisdiction.  This  suit  originated  from  a  controversy  Ix'- 
tween  two  factions  of  this  church  over  the  church  ]»i'operty, 
and  involved  the  right  of  one  faction  to  enjoin  the  other 
faction  from  using  the  pi-o]»erty  until  the  latter  slnndd  con- 
form to  the  laws,  usages  and  customs,  fjiith  autl  doctrine  of 
the  chnrcli.  The  court  held  that  it  had  no  jtirisdiction  of 
this  question,  ami  could  not  compel  one  faction  to  cease 
worshiping  in  the  church  because  of  an  abandonnuMil  of  the 
faith,  laws,  usages,  ami  customs  of  the  church.  Smith  v 
Charles,  24  So.  IMIS. 

A  house  of  worshij)  had  been  erected  by  the  l<»cal  society 
as  a  memorial  to  Bishops  IJowman  and  Kemjier.  A  move- 
ment to  change  the  location  of  the  church  from  Kadnor  to 
Merion,  take  down  the  church  edifice,  and  use  its  materials 
in  the  erection  of  a  new  building  at  the  latter  i>lace  was 
resisted  by  certain  nuMubers  of  the  <  hurch.  The  destruction 
of  the  memorial  building  was  held  to  in\(ilve  a  <piestion  of 
good  faitli  and  not  simply  a  (picsliou  of  ecclesiastical  jtolity. 


ir.i        Tin:  ('i\  iL  LAW  AM)  'I'm:  (iniicii 

Tlic  iinitlcr  w;is,  llicrcrorr,  williiii  tlic  jni'isdictioii  (»f  ;i  court 
<>r  ('([uity.  (Mislinum  v  CImiicIi  of  tlic  (lood  Slicidici-d,  HJ2 
Pa.  SI.  1»S(). 

Members,  Status.  Tlio  vi^lit  l«>  a  sliai-c  in  llic  ^ovcT-miicnt 
<>r  a  (•(»r|»()rali(»ii  is  a  civil  iij;lil  wliicli  llui  law  will  piotcct, 
and  Ilic  (onrls  will  llierefore  (letcnnine  who  aic  nicinbers 
of  llic  coi-poj-alioM.  And  where,  as  is  usually  the  case  with 
local  chui'ch  oT-<;aui/,alions,  all  the  a<lult  luenihers  of  the 
reli«;ious  body,  the  couo;regation,  and  uo  others,  are  ineuibers 
of  the  cor|»oration,  so  that  when  one  l)econies  a  uieud)er  of 
the  ndijiious  body  he  becomes  a  member  of  the  corjtora- 
jioii.  and  when  he  ceases  to  be  a  ineniber  of  the  relij?ious 
body  he  ceases  to  be  a  nieudx'r  of  the  corporation  and  has 
no  further  ri<;hts  in  it  and  in  the  property  owne«l  by  it, 
the  court,  to  determine  on  the  civil  right  claimed — that  to 
be  a  UKMuber  of  the  cori>oration — must  determine  on  mem- 
bership in  the  relij;ious  body,  the  congregation.  It  must 
determine  this  by  the  rules  which  the  congregation  has 
ad(>pted  for  its  nuMnbershi]).  If  the  rules  make  adherence 
to  jiarticular  doctrines  a  condition  of  membershii),  then,  so 
long  as  those  rules  continue,  the  repudiation  of  such  do*  - 
trines  would  seem  to  determine  a  member's  right  to  remain 
in  the  congregation.  Trustees,  East  Norway  Lake  Nor- 
wegian Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  and  others  v  Halvor- 
son,  4:5  Minn.  50.^. 

On  a  ([uestion  relating  to  membership  in  the  corporation, 
it  Mas  held  that  while  the  statute  indicated  who  might 
become  members  of  the  cor))oration,  it  did  not  determine 
the  (pmlifications  of  clinnh  mend)ers.  l*arties  interested  in 
the  controversy  must  first  exhaust  their  remedies  in  the 
church  judicatories  before  civil  courts  would  consider  the 
([uestions  involved.    Buettner  v  Frazer,  100  ^lidi.  17!>. 

Where  differences  of  opinion  arose  in  a  local  society  on 
doctrinal  (|iu\stions  a!id  church  government,  and  the  nmjor- 
ity  expelled  the  minority,  this  action  was  held  to  be  final 
and  conclusive,  and  was  binding  on  the  courts,  Bennett  v 
Morgan,  112  Kv.  r)12. 


CIVIL  COrKTS  155 

The  civil  couit  will  iiol  det-ide  who  oiiyht  to  be  nieiubei-s 
of  a  diurth,  nor  whctlier  the  persons  have  been  regularly  or 
irregularly  exconiniunicated.  The  fact  of  exconininnication 
must  be  taken  a.s  conclvisive  jtroof  that  the  persons  excluded 
are  not  members,  but  conrts  may  Incpiire  whether  the  reso- 
lution of  ex]>ulsion  was  the  act  of  the  <hnrch  or  of  pei-sons 
who  were  not  the  church,  an<l  who  consequently  had  no 
right  to  excommunicate  others.  Bouhlin  v  Alexander,  15 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  i:)l. 

Minister.  Towers  v  IJnndy,  15  Neb.  -OS  involved  rival 
claims  of  two  ministers  each  claiming  to  be  the  regular 
pastor  of  the  church,  but  it  was  held  that  the  title  of  the 
claimants  was  an  ecclesiastical  matter  to  be  determined  by 
the  proper  church  tribunals  and  that  the  civil  courts  could 
not  interfere. 

A  minister  was  appointed  to  this  local  society  according 
to  the  rules  of  the  denomination.  Subseipiently  charges 
were  preferred  against  him,  and  a  trial  was  had  before  a 
tribunal  constituted  according  to  the  law  of  the  denomina- 
tion. The  charges  were  sustained  and  the  decision  was  con- 
firmed by  the  Annual  Conference,  and  the  minister  was 
thereupon  discharged  from  the  ministry  and  expelled  from 
the  church.  It  was  held  that  the  action  of  tlie  church  tri- 
bunal was  binding  on  the  civil  courts,  ami  that  they  had  no 
power  to  review  and  revise  such  decision,  and  a  perpetnal 
injunction  was  granted  restraining  the  minister  and  others 
in  the  local  church  from  continuing  to  occu])y  the  clmnh 
pro])erty.    INnmder  v  Ashe,  41  Neb.  (JTl'. 

In  Christ  Church  v  rhilli]>s,  5  Del.  Cli.  llMl,  llic  ronrl 
declined  to  consider  the  (in('s(i(»ii  of  I  lie  statns  of  the  itMlor 
of  a  Trotestant  lOpiscojtal  church.  The  relation  of  a  rector 
to  the  church  is  to  be  determined  by  the  ecclesiastical 
authority  of  the  diocese. 

Considering  the  status  of  a  minister  of  the  Mcth«t<list 
Church  of  Canada,  the  conrt.  in  Ash  v  Methotlist  Chnr«h. 
27  Ont.  App.  Ke.  (Can.)  (102  said  that  the  "(incsiicin  whether 
a  minister  is  accejdable  or  incllii  i<)i(   is  pccnliarly  one  for 


ir.d        'I'm:  cix  ii.  law  and  tiii:  (Hiik'U 

tlio  jinlginont  ol'  llic  Coiit'crciMe,  and  by  Ihc  Discipline  that 
ImkIv  is  in.ule  the  sole  judge  ou  the  subject." 

Courts  have  no  ])ower  to  control  the  action  of  religious 
society  in  the  employment  or  payment  of  a  minister.  Burrel 
V  Associate  Keformed  Church,  Seneca,  44  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  282. 

"Courts  of  law  do  Tiot  interfere  with  tlie  discijdine  of  the 
church,  or  the  i)unishment  of  ministers,  by  sentences  of  the 
ecclesiastical  authorities."  Reformed  I'rotestaut  Dutch 
("Iinrch  of  All>any  v  Bradford,  8  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  50!J. 

Noninterference.  In  the  absence  of  a  valid  legal  contract 
tiie  courts  are  prohibited  to  compel  the  payment  of  a  min- 
ister's salary  or  contributions  for  the  support  of  the  min- 
istry or  the  church.  In  accordance  with  the  principles  of 
<mr  institutions  and  the  organic  law,  the  courts  refrain  from 
interfering  when  the  olfice  or  functions  are  i)urely  ecclesias- 
tical or  spiritual,  disconnected  from  any  fixed  emoluments, 
salary,  or  other  temporalities.  In  such  case  there  is  no  legal 
temporal  right  of  which  the  civil  courts  can  take  jurisdic- 
tion.   State  ex  rel  McNeill  v  Bibb  St.  Ch.  84  Ala.  23. 

Officers,  Powers.  When  church  officers  undertake  to  make 
fundamental  alterations  in  the  organization  and  its  plan 
of  operation,  such  as  affects  the  entire  membership  and  their 
status,  the  civil  courts  should  for  themselves  ascertain  the 
authority  of  such  officers  when  this  is  called  in  question  by 
the  proper  parties  and  in  proi)er  proceedings.  Especially 
will  this  be  done  when  the  authority  challenged  affects 
the  integrity  of  the  organization  and  dissolves  the  relation- 
ship theretofore  existing  among  the  members  and  the  sub- 
ordinate bodies  of  the  church.  Such  an  inquiry  does  not 
imply  that  civil  courts  will  restrain  or  interfere  with  what 
a  church  tribunal  may  have  done  in  excess  of  its  authority. 
This  might  be  considered  as  taking  cognizance  of  an  ecclesi- 
astical matter;  but  they  may  declare  the  legal  effect  of  such 
action  upon  the  property  rights  of  the  members,  and  award 
the  common  i)roperty  to  that  faction,  which  has  rebelled 
against  the  wrongful  authority  sought  to  be  exercised  over 
theuK    Clark  v  Brown,  lOS  S.  W.  421,  451    (Texas). 


ri\  II.  COI^RTS  157 

Courts  of  e(iiiily  c;iii  only  iiilerrcic  with  the  action  oi'  .siuli 
officers  as  have  been  placed  by  the  corporation  itself  iu  the 
control  of  its  affairs,  unless  either  in  excess  of  their  discre- 
tion or  in  aggrieved  cases  of  misconduct  amounting  to  actual 
or  constructive  fraud.    Cicotte  v  Anciaux,  5o  Mich.  227. 

Property  Rights,  Three  Classes.  Courts  are  iu  no  way  con- 
cerned with  the  transactions  of  ecclesiastical  bodies  except 
in  so  far  as  tangible  rights  of  jifisoiis  or  property  are 
affected.  (Questions  relating  to  these  are  divided  by  tlie 
court  into  three  classes;  the  tirst  is  where  projierly,  by  the 
express  terms  of  the  grant,  is  devoted  to  the  teaching,  sup- 
])ort,  or  spread  of  sonic  si>ecilic  form  of  religious  doctrine  or 
belief;  the  second,  where  it  is  held  by,  or  in  trust  for,  an 
independent  congregatiou ;  aud  the  third,  where  it  is  held 
by,  or  iu  trust  for,  a  congregation  or  other  association  subor- 
dinate to  some  general  church  organization,  llorsman  v 
Allen,  129  Cal.  131. 

The  questions  which  have  come  befoi-e  the  civil  courts  con- 
cerning the  rights  to  jtroperty  held  by  ecclesiastical  bodies 
have  been  divide<l  into  three  classes,  namely,  first,  cases 
where  the  ]>ro])erty  which  is  the  subject  of  controversy  has 
been  by  deed  or  will,  of  the  donor,  or  other  instrument  by 
which  the  i)roi)erty  is  held,  by  the  express  terms  of  the 
instrument,  devoted  to  the  teaching.  sup|)ort  or  spread  of 
some  specific  form  of  religious  doctrine  or  belief;  second,  to 
property  held  by  a  religious  congregation  which  by  the 
nature  of  its  organization  is  strictly  independent  of  other 
ecclesiastical  associations,  and  so  far  as  church  government 
is  concerned  owes  no  fealty  oi*  obligation  to  iiny  higher 
authority;  third,  to  cases  of  property  held  by  a  religions 
congregation  or  ecclesiastical  ImmIv,  which  is  a  sniiordinate 
mend)ei' of  some  general  clmrtli  org;nii/.ii(ion  in  whidi  there 
are  sujterior  ecclesiastical  tribunals,  with  general  ultimate 
])owers  of  control,  more  oi-  less  coni]dele.  in  some  supreme 
judicatory  over  the  whole  nieinbcisliip  of  that  general  organ- 
ization,    l.andt  V  C;iin,  12'.)  hid.  ISC. 

Property   Rights.     TIm'   jtei-sonal    iind    |.i.)|mmi\    iii:liis   of 


ir.s        'nii:  ri\  il  i,.\\\  and  'iiii;  ciii  i;<ii 

cliiiitlifs  ,'iimI  llicir  iiiciiiltcis  Jirc  <i\il.  jiihI  oI'  lliciii  tlu;  coiirts 
of  the  Sl;il('  luive  exclusive  juiisdictioii.  EcclesiaKtical 
foiiils  Ii;iv('  no  juiisdictioii  to  decide  tlie  rights  of  i)ro])('rty 
and  enforce  its  ])i-oteclion.  Bridges  v  Wilson,  11  Ih'isk. 
(Tenu.)  458. 

Protestant  Episcopal  Vestry.  Considering  a  question  relat- 
ing to  (lie  ;i]»|iro|»ria(ion  <»!'  the  linnls  of  a  Trolestant  l^pis- 
(((pal  chinch  in  South  Carolina,  the  court  in  Vestry  and 
Wardens  of  lOpiscopal  Church  of  Christ  Church  Parish  v 
Barksdale,  1  StrohliarCs  Kq.  Ke.  ( S.  C.)  IDO,  said:  "This 
court  has  no  autliority  to  interfere  with  or  control  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  vestr^'  and  wardens  unless  they  transgress 
the  limits  of  their  charter.  However  unwisely  they  may 
exercise  the  power,  they  are  responsible  only  to  their  con- 
si  it  ncnts.'' 

Quakers,  Who  Are  Overseers.  The  question,  Wlio  are  the 
overseers  of  a  mouthlj'^  meeting  of  Quakers?  within  the 
meaning  of  Massachusetts  statute  of  1822,  cliaj).  02,  is  to  be 
determined  according  to  the  discipline  of  that  people,  ex- 
pounded by  the  general  usages  of  those  persons  of  most 
experience  and  judgment  who  have  acted  under  it  and  ac- 
knowledged its  authority.  It  was  held  that  the  decision  of 
a  Yearly  Meeting  as  to  the  status  of  subordinate  officers  was 
conclusive  on  the  court.    Earle  v  Wood,  8  Cush.  (Mass.)  -431. 

Religious  Questions.  When  rights  of  property  or  civil 
rights  as  contradistinguished  from  ecclesiastical  rights  are 
involved,  and  such  rights  dei)end  ui)on  the  religious  faith  or 
orthodoxy  of  citizens,  or  the  rules,  discipline,  and  practice 
of  churches,  or  religious  denominations,  the  courts  of  this 
State  may  hear  evidence  and  determine  judicially  all  such 
questions  so  far  as  they  atfect  the  rights  of  persons  or  reli- 
gious denominations  to  jiroperty  or  civil  rights.  Grimes 
Executors  v  Harmon  and  others,  ;>5  Ind.  198. 

Courts  have  nothing  immediately  to  do  with  religious 
societies  so  far  as  relates  to  their  spiritual  concerns,  church 
government,  disci])line,  faith,  doctrines  or  modes  of  worship. 
These  are  matters  which  are  to  be  left  to  the  regulation  of 


CIVIL  COURTS  l.VJ 

their  own  ]>ec'nliar  tribunals  and  the  ecclesiastical  judica- 
tories of  each  churcli.  lint  courts  have  power  to  inquire 
info  tenets  openly  and  publicly  expressed  in  reference  to 
the  i»lace  in  which  they  are  ])roniuljiated.  Where  a  relijiious 
society  is  foi'iued,  a  jilacc  of  W(»islii|(  jjrovidcd,  and  either  by 
the  will  of  the  founder,  the  deed  ol  trust  through  which  the 
title  is  held,  or  by  the  charter  of  incorporation,  a  i)articular 
doctrine  is  to  be  ])i-eaclu'd  in  the  place,  and  the  latter  is  to 
be  devoted  to  such  ])articular  doctrine  and  service,  in  such 
a  case  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  the  trustees  of  the  conjjjrega- 
tion  to  depart  from  what  is  thus  declared  to  be  the  object  of 
the  foundation  or  original  formation  ol'  tlie  instituti(»ii,  and 
teach  new  doctrines,  and  set  nj*  a  new  nntde  of  worsiiij) 
there.  At  least  this  cannot  be  done  williout  the  consent  of 
all  the  members  of  the  church  or  congregation,  because  it 
would  be  an  infraction  of  the  will  of  the  founder,  be  contrary 
to  the  spirit  of  the  deed,  or  act  of  incorporation,  and  a  j>er- 
version  of  the  original  object  and  design  of  its  institution. 
Upon  the  complaint  of  any  i»arty  aggrieved  it  may  be  made 
the  duty  of  this  court  to  inciuire  int<>  the  docti'ines  taught, 
with  a  view  to  ascertain  whether  there  is  such  a  departure, 
and  to  restrain  and  bring  them  back  to  the  original  ])riTi- 
cil»les  of  faith  and  doctrine  if  they  will  continue  to  \\(»r 
ship  in  that  jdace.     Kowden  \-  MtLcod,   I    IMw.  (Mi.   i  \.  \.) 

The  civil  coui-ts  have  no  jtowci-,  unih'i'  tlie  » oust  itni  ions  by 
which  they  exist,  in  this  conntiy,  to  inlenncddh'  with  rrli- 
gio\is  matters  |»urely  as  such,  or  to  assume  t(t  settle  for  con- 
tending ]»arties  in  churches  any  question  of  d<»ctrine.  dis- 
cii)line,  or  organization.  These  are  tilings  wholly  ajiarl  and 
aside  fi-om  the  |»aths  to  which  civil  courts  are  ac<nstonied. 
ami  the  lields  in  which  they  are  wont  to  W(uk.  Hut  when 
chnrcli  organizations  buy  and  take  title  to  |»ropeiiy.  tlieii 
tiiey  enter  the  domain  wherein  civil  courts  control,  in  case 
any  ([uestions  arise  between  contending  parlies  (U*  individ- 
uals as  t(t  such  pi<>|teity,  the  tillc,  rii;lii  (tf  possession,  or 
use,    that    (piesli(»ii    must    be   decided    l>y    the   ci\il    court.       It 


KiO  Tin:  ("l\  II,   LAW  ANh  Till;  <'lirK<'If 

iniisl  lie  decided  like  ;iiiy  oliici-  (|ii«'sl  ion.  iict  ordiii;^  (o  the 
(•(»ii(i-;m(  (HI  wliicli  tlie  i-ij;li1  is  Iciscd.  In  ordci-  lo  iisccrtain 
llic  terms  ul'  tii:il  coiil  i;ic( ,  ;ind  its  line  ((inst  iinl  ion,  il  may 
heconie  ne<'<'ss;iry  (o  deeid(M'eeiesi;isli(;il  or  llieohtj^icjil  ques- 
lioiis.  ir  sncli  (pieslion  lias  iio(  |»revio\isly  heen  decided  l)y 
any  trilninal  williin  liie  clinicli  organization,  tlie  civil  court 
will  decide  it  according-  to  the  best  lights  attainable.  If  it 
lias  been  already  decided  by  any  ti'ibiinal  of  the  church  ap- 
|)r()])riate  for  its  decisiou  iiuder  the  contract,  before  the  con- 
troversy arose  on  which  the  snbse([uent  litigation  was  based, 
the  civil  court  w  ill  j;ive  that  decision  very  great,  if  not  con- 
trolling, weight.  To  give  weight  to  a  rule  laid  down,  or  an 
interjiretation  rendered,  by  one  of  the  parties  to  the  contro- 
versy, after  the  controversy  had  arisen,  would  be  abhorrent 
to  every  sense  of  right ;  it  would  be  tantamount  to  making 
one  party  a  judge  in  his  own  case  against  the  other.  The 
civil  court  in  deciding  a  proi)erty  right  should  honor  the 
deliverances  of  the  ecclesiastical  court  with  the  greatest 
attention  and  resjtect,  but  should  not  follow  it  unciuestion- 
ingly  in  every  case.  If  the  civil  court  can  see  clearly  and 
satisfactorily  that  the  ecclesiastical  court  was  in  error,  then 
it  should  say  so  an<l  adjudge  accordingly.  It  can  do  no 
less  in  view  of  its  obligation  to  do  justice  between  the 
parties.  It  cannot,  in  discharging  its  duty  to  decide  on 
questions  of  projterty,  hand  over  its  conscience  to  the  keep- 
ing of  any  church  organization.  The  civil  court  cannot 
rightly  evade  tlie  labor  of  investigating  the  questions  that 
arise  in  such  controversies,  no  matter  how  ditficult  or 
unfamiliar  the  (piestions  may  be,  nor  can  it  escape  the  re- 
sponsibility no  matter  how  embarrassing.  It  is  proper  that 
the  civil  court  should  act  with  diffidence,  it  is  true,  on  such 
questions,  yielding  all  respect  due  to  the  opinions  of  experts, 
as  upon  any  subject  on  which  expert  evidence  is  required, 
but  when  it  clearly  ai>pears  that  the  ecclesiastical  tribunal 
is  wrong  it  should  not  be  followed.  If  the  civil  court  looks 
wholly  to  the  ecclesiastical  courts  for  the  settlement  of  the 
principle,  or,  as  the  case  may  be,  the  facts  on  which  the 


CIVIL  COURTS  161 

right  of  property  turns,  llieu  the  loriiier  i(Mirt.  abilicalcs  its 
functions  in  favor  of  the  latter.  Tlie  civil  court  cauuot 
invade  the  sacred  iiulosure  of  tlie  churdi  and  assume  tcj 
direct  her  teachings  or  tlie  administration  of  her  rites  and 
ceremonies,  or  to  hinder  the  imposition  of  her  censures;  but 
where  property  riglits  are  involved  the  church,  as  to  Ihese, 
stands  on  the  same  plane  with  all  other  persons,  natural  and 
corporate,  no  higher,  no  lower.  The  law  is  over  all.  Land- 
rith  V  Hudgins,  121  Tenn.  r>r)(l. 

While  it  may  be  true,  that  the  religious  belief  of  llie 
grantor  should  not  be  inquired  into  for  the  purpose  of  as- 
certaining the  nature  and  extent  of  the  trust  (Attorney 
General  v  Pearson,  7  Sim.  (Kng.  70S),  yet  it  is  clear,  that 
the  circumstances  surrounding  the  making  ami  accept- 
ing of  the  conveyance,  may  be  impiii-ed  into  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  the  object  of  the  ti-ust.  First 
Constitutional  Presbyterian  Church  v  C'ongregational  So- 
ciety, 23  Iowa  5(;7. 

A  question  having  arisen  as  to  the  right  to  « ontrol  ciiiiith 
property,  it  was  held  that  while  as  a  general  |iro|tosiiioM 
no  man  could  be  called  in  (piestion  for  his  religious  bclici", 
yet  such  an  inquiry  was  constitutional  in  a  case  involving 
the  title  of  church  property  depending  on  the  belief,  faith 
and  doctrines  of  the  society.  The  (juestion  in  this  case  was 
not  one  of  conscience,  but  of  i)roperly,  and  tberefore  was  a 
])roper  subject  of  judicial  investigation.  Kisor  v  Stancilt  r. 
Wright  N.  P.  (Ohio)  ;J2:{. 

Courts  deal  with  tangible  i-iglils.  n(»t  wiili  siiiriiiiai  con- 
ceptions, unless  they  are  incidental  and  neccssaiily  involvd 
in  the  determination  of  legal  rights.     Holm  v  Holm.  SI  Wis. 

374. 

In  Trustees  of  the  Organ  .Meeting  llonsc,  v  Sc;iloi-d.  1 
Dev.  Eq.  (N.  C.)  453,  it  was  held  that  a  court  ofc(|nity  wonbl 
not,  upon  a  dispute  respecting  the  title  to  (hunb  pioperl\. 
decide  a  religions  conti-oversy  itetwcen  its  menili«is. 

The  Wisconsin  S\i|>renu"  ConrI  bas  repeat«'dly  discbiimetl 
all  right  to  determine  mere  (pieslidiis  of  ImIiIi.  doctrine,  or 


h;l'        Till']  cix  II.  LAW  .\M»  'I'm:  (IUkcii 

schism  not  iit'ccssjirily  invohcd  in  llic  ciilorcciiM-iit  «»!'  jisccr- 
tained  trusts  oi*  the  (Ictcniiiiuilioii  of  Ic^iil  iij;lils;  ;iii(l  li;is 
also  (lis(];iiiii(Ml  any  rif^ht  to  all  iiilj'rrcrcncc  willi  incic 
church  <liscii)line  in  the  absence  of  jiny  invasion  of  IIh;  I('<,';iI 
rights  of  persons  or  property.  Hellstern  v  Kat/.er,  10.'>  Wis. 
391. 

Resulting  Trust,  Beneficiary.  C(jui1s  of  law  will  not  enter 
into  the  examination  or  <liscussion  of  jnirely  theological 
questions  in  order  to  ascertain  the  proi>er  beneticiary  of  a 
resulting  trust;  but  if  the  trust  was  created  for  the  benctit 
of  those  adhering  to  a  particular  denomination,  courts  of 
law  will  accejit  and  follow  the  determination  of  the  j)ro]>er 
ecclesiastical  tribunals  as  to  who  are  adhering  and  in  subor- 
dination to  that  denomination.  First  Constitutional  Presby. 
ChuT'ch  V  Con.  So.  L'.'!  la.  5(i7. 

Salary,  Payment  Cannot  Be  Enforced.  A  tariff  prescribed 
by  a  bishop  of  the  Konuui  Catholic  Church  may  be  binding 
on  the  conscience  of  those  immediately  affected  by  it,  but 
resort  cannot  be  had  to  courts  of  justice  to  enforce  compli- 
ance. Discussing  this  question,  the  court  said :  "It  appears 
from  the  eighth  decree  of  the  first  provincial  council,  held 
in  Baltimore  in  the  year  1829,  that  the  right  reverend  mem- 
bers of  that  body  doubted  whether  the  payment  of  the  salary 
could  be  coei-ced  in  temporal  courts;  since  they  enjoined 
upon  each  bishop  of  the  different  dioceses  of  the  United 
States  to  interdict  everj'  church  to  retain  the  whole  or  a 
part  of  the  usual  s;il;iry  of  the  curate.  The  courts  of  justice 
of  a  State,  in  which  the  peojjle  recognized  no  power  of  tax- 
ing thcni.  in  ;my  branch  of  the  goverumeut,  but  that  in 
which  Ihcy  are  rej»resented,  cannot  easily  be  persuaded  to 
ackjiowledge  the  i)ower  of  fixing  sums  to  be  drawn  from  the 
pockets  of  suitors  by  the  mandate  of  tlie  pope,  or  of  any 
bishop  appointed  by  him."  Church  of  St.  Francis,  Pointe 
Coupee  V  Martin,  4  Kob.  (La.)  02. 

Schism.  A  court  of  equity  will  not  attemi)t  to  enforce  the 
particular  faith  or  doctrines  of  either  party,  though  their 
existence  and  nature  may  incidentally  be  involved  in  an 


CIVIL  COTTRTS  1G3 

inquiry  relative  to  the  rights  of  tlie  society.  K(jltiiiaii  v 
Bartling,  22  Nebr.  :i75. 

Separation.  Civil  courts  in  (Icterniiiiing  the  (juestion  of 
legitimate  succession,  in  cases  where  a  separation  has  taken 
place  in  a  voluntary  religious  society,  will  adopt  its  rules, 
and  will  enforce  its  policy  in  the  .spirit  :iinl  to  the  elfecf  tor 
which  it  was  designed.    Harrison  v  Iloylc.  HI  Ohio  2r)4. 

Temporalities.  As  regards  the  piirelv  ecclesiastical  or 
spiritual  feature  of  the  church,  civil  courts  have  steadily 
asserted  their  utter  want  of  jurisdiction  to  hear  and  deter- 
mine any  controversy  ])ertair.ing  lliereto.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  civil  courts  have,  without  hesitation,  exerci.sed 
their  jurisdiction  to  i)rotect  the  teni]>oi-alities  of  the  church. 
Christian  Church,  Huntsville  v  Sommer,  4:{  So.    lAla.i    S. 

Trusts.  "A  court  of  equity,  under  its  general  |)o\\er  and 
duty  to  see  that  trusts  are  not  perverted,  and  upon  the  apjdi- 
cation  of  i)ro])er  parties,  and  U])0U  i)roper  issues,  inav  he 
obliged  to  inquire  into  the  fact  whether  doctrines  specially 
designated  in  a  trust  have  been  professed  and  promulgale<l, 
or  forms  of  worship  specially  ])rescribed  have  been  adopted 
or  rejected.  Not  to  decide  whether  such  doctrines  are  sound, 
but  whether  the  trustee  has  conscientiously  done  that  with- 
out which  lie  has  no  good  right  to  hold  I  lie  prctperty.  «»r  to 
use  it  as  he  has  done."  Attorney  Oeneral  v  Troprietois  of 
Meeting  House  in  Federal  Street.  :'.  dray  (Mass.)  ,"iS. 

"The  jurisdiction  <d"  civil  courts  to  adjudge  any  ecclesias- 
tical matter  must  result  as  a  mere  incident  to  the  determina- 
tion of  some  ](roj)erty  right.  Thus,  whei-e  i»ro]ierly  has  been 
conveyed  to  some  religi(»us  use,  and  lli.it  use  is  express  and 
specitic,  and  has  been  indicated  by  the  doncw  and  is  set  out 
in  the  conveyam-e,  a  trust  arises,  and  a  court  of  cMpiily  will, 
upon  application  of  the  beneticiaries.  ,is  it  Wiudd  in  case  of 
any  other  sort  of  valid  trust,  prevent  any  diversion  of  such 
l»ro])erty  to  any  other  than  the  purp(».ses  o\'  the  founders  of 
the  trust.  In  the  case  of  a  detinile  I  rust  for  tlie  inainlenance 
of  a  jtarticular  faith  or  form  of  \\orshi|».  the  conn  will  even 
go  so  far  as  to  ju-event  tlu   dixcisiou  of  the  proi>erly  l>\  the 


h;i        tiik  otvtl  law  and  tin;  ciiiHrH 

;icli(»ii  (•!'  .1  iii;iji»iil  y  oC  I  lie  liciicliciiiliL's ;  ;iii(l,  il'  llit'i'(;  he  :i 
iiiiiKiiily  who  ;nlliri('  l<>  tlio  onjjnnal  principles,  such  ini- 
iiorily  will  be  licM  to  (oinprise  tlio  oxcliisive  lKMM'li<i;iiies, 
and  entitled  to  the  contiol  wnd  enjoyment  of  the  property 
without  interference  by  Hie  nnlaithfnl  majority."  Nance 
V  Hnshhy,  !)1  Tenn.  'MYA. 

It  is  not  tlie  jtrovince  of  the  courts  of  equity'  to  determine 
mere  (piestions  of  faith,  doctrine,  or  schism  not  necessarily 
involved  in  the  enforcement  of  ascertained  trusts.  Courts 
deal  with  tanj^ible  riy;hts,  not  with  spiritual  conceptions, 
unless  they  are  incidentally  and  necessarily  involved  in  the 
determimition  of  leyal  rights.  Such  trusts,  when  valid  ;in<l 
so  ascertained,  must,  of  course,  be  enforced ;  but  to  call  for 
equitable  interference  there  must  be  such  a  real  and  sub- 
stantial dei)arture  from  the  designated  faith  or  doctrine  as 
will  be  in  contravention  of  such  trust.  Fadness  v  Braun- 
borg,  73  Wis.  257. 

The  <-ourt  lias  no  right  to  institute  an  inquiry  into  the 
doctrines  or  mode  of  worship  of  any  religious  society,  except 
such  inquiry  shall  become  absolutely  necessary  for  the  pro- 
tection of  trust  pr()])erty.  Tf  property  is  given  to  a  partic- 
ular denomination  of  Christians  adhering  to  certain  doc- 
trines and  forms  of  worship,  and  an  attempt  is  made  to  per- 
vert the  ])ro])erty  to  any  use,  religious  or  otherwise,  different 
from  that  to  which  the  donor  devoted  it,  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  court  to  restore  the  property,  and  to  protect  it  in  its 
original  use.  To  do  this  it  frequently  becomes  necessary 
for  the  court  to  inquire  into  the  peculiar  tenets  and  doc- 
trines of  different  societies  claiming  the  property  under  the 
same  trust.  It  is  not  the  ]U'ovince  of  the  court,  in  j)ursuing 
such  an  inquiry,  to  decide  which  doctrines  are  correct,  but 
which  society  maintains  the  doctrines,  to  support  and  pro- 
mulgate which  the  donor  dedicated  the  property.  German 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  Newark  v  Maschop,  10  N.  J. 
Eq.  57. 

When  ])roperty  is  devoted  to  a  specific  doctrine  the  civil 
courts  will,  when  nccessaiy  to  protect  the  trust  to  which 


CIVIL  COLKTS  165 

the  property  has  been  «levote(i,  iiupiin'  inlo  the  religious 
faith  and  practice  of  the  parties  claiming  it.>  use,  and  will 
see  that  it  shall  not  be  diverted  from  that  trust.  Bates  v 
Houston,  GO  Ga.  198. 

Civil  courts  have  power  to  consider  questions  relating 
to  the  alleged  perversion  of  trusts  by  ecclesiastical  bodies, 
and  may  in(piire  whether  an  ecclesiastical  body  has,  in  its 
action,  transcended  its  powers  or  jurisdiction  as  a  legisla- 
tive, judicial,  or  executive  body.  Civil  courts  may  look  into 
and  determine  the  (piestion  wlietlier  there  has  been,  by  the 
action  of  such  a  body,  a  substaiiti:il  and  evident  departure 
in  essential  matters  of  faith,  .since  such  action  would  affect 
the  title  to  the  i)r()j)eily  held  by  the  church  for  its  uses.  But 
such  departure  must  be  from  essential  faith,  and  must  l)e 
obvious,  and  not  reasonal)ly  ojien  to  contioversy. 

The  general  rule  is  that  the  doctrinal  decisions  ami  judi- 
cial constructions  of  a  church  constitution  and  legislation 
under  it,  of  the  highest  judicatory  of  a  cliurch.  are  binding 
upon  the  civil  courts,  and  the  latter  liaving  no  power  to 
review  or  reverse  them.  Griggs  v  Middangh,  10  Ohio  Dec. 
643. 

United  Brethren  in  Christ.  In  Bear  v  llea.sley,  08  Mich. 
279,  considering  the  powers  of  the  General  Conference,  the 
courts  say  that  tlie  General  Conference  is  the  highest  judi- 
catory of  the  church,  and  is  intrusted  with  llie  general  sn]»er- 
vision  of  its  atfairs,  botli  temjioral  ;ni«l  spiritual.  In  all 
nuitters,  therefore,  in  wliicli  it  Ims  jurisdiction  its  judg- 
ments are  binding  njion  tlie  cliurcli.  its  clei-gy,  and  its  mem- 
bers, an<l  will  not  be  reviewed  by  tlie  civil  c(un-ls. 

The  action  of  the  highest  ecdesiiisl  ic;il  ImhIv  of  a  icligious 
sect,  in  ado])liug  the  rejMtrt  of  a  committee  app(»inted  to 
detei'miue  llie  vali<lity  of  :i  coiisl  il  ul  ioual  anieuduieut,  and 
to  subiuit  it  lo  a  vole  <»!  ils  nieniliers.  llie  amendment  being 
adopted  by  llie  a(btpli<»ii  of  llie  r<'p(ul.  is  legislative,  and  not 
an  adju<lical  ion  binding  on  ci\il  coiiils,  williin  llie  nile  con- 
cerning the  binding  ell'ecl  of  decisions  by  cliuicli  Iribunals 
on  (piestions  of  lailh  oi-  of  ecclesiastical  law  or  cu.slom.    The 


Hiii  'rili;  (IN  II.   LAW   AM)  Till-  (III   K<ll 

action,  llicri,  (»!'  (iciicrjil  ('oiilVrjMHC  of  ISSI)  of  the  clniicli  of 
the  United  liiethrcii  in  Christ  in  adoptinj^  the  report  of  the 
committee  of  seven,  to  the  elfeet  that  the  revised  confesKJon 
of  faith  and  constitution  ])i-oi)os<'(l  by  tlie  General  Confer- 
ence of  18S5  had  been  adopted  anil  carried  at  the  election  in 
Novend)er,  1S8S,  and  shonbl  be  so  recognized  nj>on  the  ])roc- 
laniation  by  the  board  of  bishops,  was  ])ni-ely  legislative 
and  open  to  review  in  the  civil  courts,  riiiloniatli  College  v 
Wyatt,  L*7  0r.  :{!)(). 

Worship  and  Doctrine.  Civil  courts  have  no  jurisdiction  to 
determine  mere  ecclesiastical  questions.  The  Maryland 
court,  therefore,  declined  to  entertain  jurisdiction  and  de- 
termine (juestions  relating  to  the  alleged  violation  by  a 
Lutheran  congregation  of  provisions  in  its  articles  of  incor- 
I)oration,  requiring  the  worship  and  service  to  be  in  the 
German  language,  and  also  recjuirfng  ministers  to  hold  to 
the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Symbolical  Books  of  1580. 
The  determination  of  these  questions  was  exclusively  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  ]»ro]>er  authorities  of  the  denomina- 
tion. Shaeffer  v  Klee,  100  Md.  -G4;  see  also  Ecclesiastical 
Courts. 


COMMUNITY  SOCIETIES 

Amana  Society,  1G7. 

Harmony  Society,  organization,  IGS. 

Jehovah  Presbytery  of  Zion,  Preparation,  Iowa,  170. 

Oneida  Community,  171. 

Order  of  St.  Jientnlict,  172. 

Separatists,  173. 

Shakers,  17/). 

Amana  Society.  This  is  a  roliojons  orj^anization.  The 
preamble'  to  (he  constitulioii,  whicl)  is  (he  ConiKlalioii  oC  all 
the  articles  of  incorporation,  recites  the  emigration  of  the 
Coninninity  of  True  Tnsitiratioii  from  Gormaiiy  to  this 
country  in  184:^,  for  the  sake  of  civil  and  religious  liberty; 
its  settlement  at  Ebenezer,  near  Buffalo,  New  York,  and 
removal  therefrom  to  Iowa  County,  a(cor<lin<i  to  the  known 
will  of  God.  The  constitution  provided,  anioiij;  other  things, 
that  agriculture  and  raising  of  catde  and  other  tlomestic 
animals,  in  connection  with  some  maiiuractni'ing  and  trades, 
shall,  un<ler  the  blessing  of  (Jod,  form  (lie  means  of  sns(e- 
nance  of  this  society.  The  exi)enses  of  (lie  society  were  (o  be 
paid  from  the  income,  and  the  surjdus  a|»plied  (o  the  im- 
provement of  th<'  common  estate  of  tlie  society,  meeting- 
houses and  sclioolhonscs,  printing  establishments,  the  care 
of  aged  UHMnbers,  (he  establishment  of  a  business  an<]  safety 
fund,  and  to  benevohMit  jtnrposes  in  general. 

Members  of  the  society  wei-e  entitled  iiot  only  to  support 
and  care,  but  an  annual  snm  for  maintenance  lor  (liem- 
selves  and  (heir  lamilies,  and  (he  members  relincpiished  to 
the  society  all  <lainis  I'oi'  wages,  and  any  interest  in  tin? 
l»i-o|»erty.  No  divi<lends  were  declared,  and  no  money  was 
given  to  any  mendter,  save  (o  meet  (he  bare  necessities  of 
the  most  economical  e.\is(ence.  No  compensation  was  made 
for  work. 

167 


ir.s         T\\\:  ri\  IL  |,.\A\'  A.\h  'llli:  rill  iKii 

ill  !!)()(»  Ilic  socicly  <'<>iisistc(l  ol'  iilxxil  I.Tril)  iiMMiilM'rs,  and 
it  <»\\ii('(l  ;il>oiit  -0,225  acres  of  l;iii(l  in  Iowa  and  Jolinson 
('(unities,  of  (he  estimated  value  of  ^H)  an  acre.  There  were 
seven  villii<;es  and  nnnierons  hnildin^^s  devoted  to  manu- 
facture, besides  a  larj^e  nunilxT  of  dwelling  houses.  The 
societ}'  owned  stock  estiniate<l  to  he  worth  $70,000,  and  its 
;innual  income  was  about  §80,000. 

in  a  proceeding  against  the  society,  charging  it  with 
wrongful  exercise  of  corporate  powers,  it  was  held  that  the 
corporation  was  a  religious  corporation,  although  carrying 
on  various  ojjerations  of  a  secular  character,  and  that  its 
members  had  a  right  to  establish  and  maintain  the  com- 
munity of  property,  and  that  the  corporation  could  not  be 
dissolved  ou  the  application  of  the  attorney-general.  State 
of  Iowa  V  Amana  Society,  lo2  la.  304. 

Harmony  Society,  Organization.  The  society  was  organized 
by  articles  of  association  made  between  several  persons  in 
1821,  and  by  other  articles  in  1827.  According  to  the  latter 
articles,  the  society  was  formed  "on  the  basis  of  Christian 
fellowship,  and  the  i)rinciples  of  which  being  faithfully 
derived  from  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  include  the  government 
of  the  patriarchal  age,  united  to  the  community  of  property, 
adopted  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and  wherein  the  single 
object  sought  is  to  approximate,  so  far  as  human  imperfec- 
tion may  allow,  to  the  fulfillment  of  the  will  of  God.  by  the 
exercise  of  those  all'ections,  and  to  the  practice  of  those 
virtues  which  are  essential  to  the  happiness  of  man  in  time 
and  throughout  eternits'.''  The  associates  conveyed  to  the 
leader.  George  Rapi>,  and  others,  all  their  property  as  a  free 
gift  or  donation,  for  the  benefit  and  use  of  the  association  or 
community.  The  associates  agreed  to  obey  the  laws  of  the 
society.  It  was  further  agreed  tliat  any  associate  who 
might  desire  to  witlidraw  should  be  at  liberty  to  do  so.  but 
should  not  claim  compensation  for  services.  Ra])})  and 
others,  constituting  the  leaders,  agreed  to  supply  the  asso- 
ciates with  the  necessaries  of  life,  including  clothing,  meat, 
drink,  lodging,  etc.,  for  themselves  and  their  families,  con- 


COMMUNITY  SOCIKTIKS  169 

tinuing  during  life,  iu  sickuess  as  well  as  in  healLli,  aud 
including  medical  attendance.  But  if  any  i)erson  should 
not  be  able  to  conijjly  with  the  regnlatioiis  of  I  lie  society,  he 
might  withdraw,  aud  would  be  entitled  to  receive  the  value 
of  the  propertj'  turned  over  to  the  association  by  liiiii  with- 
out interest. 

B}'  an  earlier  agreement,  1805,  the  signers  transferred 
to  George  Rapp  and  his  associates,  all  the  property  owned 
b}'  the  associates  as  a  free  gift,  or  donation,  foi-  the  beiielit 
of  the  community  in  llarmouy,  Pennsylvania,  renouncing 
all  their  interest  iu  the  property,  and  making  it  subject  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  superintendent  of  the  coiiimniiity  to 
the  same  extent  as  if  they  had  never  owned  it.  Withdrawals 
were  permitted,  but  without  the  right  to  claim  property 
given  to  the  society.  In  each  of  these  articles  Kapp  and 
other  leaders  adopted  the  signers  of  the  documents  as  mem- 
bers of  the  society,  with  the  privilege  of  being  present  at 
all  religious  meetings.  The  agreement  of  ISO.")  c(»ntaiiied 
substantially  the  same  provisions  as  the  agreement  of  181'7. 
A  similar  agreement  was  nmde  in  1821. 

The  court  said  the  association  was  not  a  partnership,  and 
that  the  agreements  were  valid  and  not  repugnant  to  any 
principle  of  modern  law.  In  this  action,  brought  by  a  per- 
sonal representative  of  one  of  the  associates,  against  Kapp 
and  others  for  an  accounting,  it  was  alleged  that  because 
the  sub.scriber  might,  under  the  terms  of  the  articles,  with- 
draw the  contributions  ma<le  by  him,  liis  personal  repiesen- 
tatives  had  the  same  right.  The  light  to  withdraw  was  not 
transmissible;  and  even  if  it  were  transmissible,  the  sid)- 
scriber's  release  on  joining  the  a.-^sociation  would  i»e  a  bar 
to  any  claim  by  his  heirs  or  next  ..f  kin.  St  iiribrr  v  Kapp, 
5  Watts  (l»a.)  351. 

The  society  was  composed  at  lirsl  of  (leiniaus,  who  emi- 
grated to  the  Tnited  States  in  1805,  under  the  leadership 
of  George  Ea]>p.  The  members  were  a.s.sociaietl  and  com- 
bined by  the  common  belief  that  the  goveinmeut  ot  the  patri- 
archal aii-e,  united   to  the  comnnniilv   of  |)ropert\.  a<lo|.ted 


17(1  Tin:  ("l\  II.   LAW  AM)  Till:  ('III   K(ll 

ill  I  lie  <I;iys  of  the  ii]>(»sll('s,  would  coimJikc'  to  iJi'oiuofo  llicii" 
toiii|>oi;il  ;iii(l  «'t('iii;il  Iijii)i)iiiess.  The  fouiiderH  of  the  society 
sniTcinlcrcd  jill  llicir  jiropciMy  1o  tin*  association  for  the 
foiiniioii  benefit.  The  society  was  settled  ori}j;iiially  in  Penn- 
sylvania, was  removed  in  1814  and  1815  to  Indiana,  and 
ajjnin  in  1825  to  Kconomy,  in  Pennsylvania. 

The  organic  law  of  the  society  in  regard  to  their  property 
is  contained  in  two  sections  of  the  articles  of  association, 
adopted  in  1827  by  the  associates,  of  whom  the  plaintifif  was 
one.    They  are  as  follows : 

"All  the  property  of  the  society,  real,  personal,  and  mixed 
in  law  or  equity,  and  howsoever  contributed  and  acquired, 
shall  be  deemed,  now  and  forever,  joint  and  indivisible 
stock;  each  individual  is  to  be  considered  to  have  finally 
and  irrevocably  parted  with  all  his  former  contributions, 
whether  in  laud,  goods,  money,  or  labor,  and  the  same  rule 
shall  apply  to  all  future  contributions,  whatever  they  may 
be. 

"Should  any  individual  withdraw  from  the  society,  or 
depart  this  life,  neither  he,  in  the  one  case,  nor  his  represen- 
tatives, in  the  latter,  shall  be  entitled  to  demand  an  ac- 
count of  said  contributions,  whetlier  in  land,  goods,  money, 
or  labor,  or  to  claim  anything  from  the  society  as  matter  of 
right.  But  it  shall  be  left  altogether  to  the  discretion  of 
the  superintendent  to  decide  whether  any,  and.  if  any,  what 
allowance  shall  be  made  to  such  member,  or  his  representa- 
tive, as  a  donation." 

Baker  et  al  v  Nachtrieb,  11)  How.  (U.  S.)  120,  plaintiff 
settled  with  the  connnunity  and  withdrew  receiving  a  dona- 
tion, which  was  authorized  by  the  ]ilan  of  government.  He 
sought  by  this  suit  to  recover  a  share  of  the  property,  but  it 
was  held  that  his  previous  settlement,  not  having  been  im- 
peached, was  conclusive,  and  that  he  could  not  recover. 

For  other  cases  involving  various  a.spects  of  the  Harmony 
Society  see  Schwartz  v  Duss,  93  Fed.  521),  187  U.  S.  8,  Speidel 
V  Henrici,  120  U.  S.  'Ml. 

Jehovah  Presbytery  of  Zion,  Preparation.  Iowa.     This  so- 


(X)MMrXlTV  SOCIKTIKS  171 

ciety,  which  embodies  the  (((iimmiiitv  idcM.  is  noted   in  tin* 
artiele  on  Moi'inoiis. 

Oneida  Community.  This  coiiiniunity  was  I'orined  al 
Oueichi,  New  York,  in  the  year  ISIS.  riaintiiV  at  tlie  ajje  of 
four  years  became  a  provisional  niendter  of  the  conininnity, 
and  on  reachin<;  his  majority  lie  rormally  assente»l  to  its 
articles  of  covenant  and  remained  a  nuMnber  nntil  ISSt), 
when  he  left  tbe  service  of  the  community  and  en^ajicd  in 
other  business.  The  administinlive  connsel  of  the  conininn- 
ity construed  his  conduct  as  a  withdrawal  and  adopted  a 
resolution  accordinj>ly,  which  was  contii-med  by  the  com- 
munity at  a  family  nieetinf>-.  In  ISS4  tiic  jdaintill  bcjian 
an  action  aj^ainst  the  community  and  a  new  corporation 
formed  thei-efrom  to  ju-ocure  a  judjjnuMit,  declaring;  that 
he  was  still  a  member  of  the  community.  an<l  entitled  to 
share  in  its  ])roi»erty,  and  also  for  an  accounting;  and  a 
division  of  the  propei-ty  amon<?  the  nuMubei-s.  It  was  ludd 
that  he  could  not  maintain  tiie  action.  ( )ii  sij^nin^i  the 
articles  the  propei-ty  of  each  s\d)scriber  immediat(dy  be- 
came an  insej)arable  i»art  of  the  community's  capital,  and 
while  no  one  was  comp(dled  to  toil,  yet  labor  was  enjoined 
as  a  relif»ious  duty,  au<l  the  earnings  (A'  all  were  minjiled 
in  the  common  treasury.  ICvei-y  member  was  at  libeity 
to  withdi'aw  at  any  time  upon  his  (»wn  niolion.  but  he 
could  not  take  with  him  <u-  demand  as  a  rijiht  any  shai-e 
of  the  joint  projierty;  all  must  be  left  intact  for  the  use 
and  enjoyment  of  those  who  remainetl  btynl  to  the  jmr- 
poses  of  the  orj^ani/.atiou.  An  a<(ounl  was  kept  of  the 
property  contributed  by  a  memlxM*  upon  his  admission,  and 
if  he  withdrew,  it  was  the  ]nactice  to  refniid  it  ur  its  e(piiv- 
alent  in  value  without  interest  or  increase.  This  was  not 
regarded  as  a  liability,  and  the  time  and  manner  of  r»'fund- 
ing  rested  in  the  discretion  of  the  conimuniiy,  llir(tn;;li  tiie 
voice  of  its  mend)ei-s,  but  the  education,  subsistence,  cloth- 
ing, and  other  necessaries  of  life  furnished  them  and  their 
children  were  to  be  recei\-ed  as  just  (Mpiivalents  for  all  linir 
labor  and  services,  and  no  claim  for  wa^es  was  l<i  be  in.ide 


172        Tin;  ('i\ii.  LAW  AM)  Tin:  (Imkch 

l»y  any  \villi<lrii\viii.n  iiicmlxT.  Tlicic  \v;is  ii  iniihiiil  sfijnila- 
lion  tliiil  no  incnilx'i'  oi-  his  licirs,  cxcciifors,  adiiiiiiislriifors, 
or  jissigns  would  ever  luin^  ;iny  action,  either  at  hiw  or  in 
e(iuity,  or  other  process  or  proceeding  for  wages  or  other 
conii»ensation  for  services,  nor  for  tlie  recovery  of  any  ])rop- 
erty  contributed  at  any  time,  or  make  any  claim  or  demand 
therefoi-  of  any  kind  or  nature  whatsoever.  Burt  v  Oneida 
Coniniunily,  K^7  N.  V.  ^>4<^. 

Order  of  St.  Benedict.  This  order  was  founded  by  St. 
Benedict  in  Italy  about  the  year  A.  D.  525.  A  civil  corpora- 
tion known  as  the  order  of  St.  Benedict  of  New  Jersey  was 
chartered  in  that  State.  Augustin  Wirth  became  a  member 
of  the  order  at  the  monastery  of  St.  Vincent  in  Pennsyl- 
vania in  1S52.  In  1S8T  Wirth  transferred  his  stability  from 
the  abbey  of  St.  Benedict  in  Kansas  to  the  abbey  of  St. 
Mary  in  Newark,  New  Jersey,  and  therefore  to  the  order  of 
St.  Benedict  of  New  Jersey.  Wirth  died  at  Springlield, 
Miiiiu'sota,  December  IJ),  1901.  It  was  held  that  he  was  a 
member  of  the  New  Jersey  order  at  the  time  of  his  death. 
This  action  was  brought  by  the  New  Jersey  corporation  to 
recover  certain  property^  held  by  Wirth  at  the  time  of  his 
death,  and  which  it  was  claimed  belonged  to  the  corporation 
by  virtue  of  the  vow  of  poverty  taken  by  Wirth  when  he 
became  a  member  of  the  corporation.  Under  this  vow  Wirth 
could  not  hold  any  ju-operty  as  his  own;  he  was  entitle<l 
only  to  a  decent  sujtport  as  a  mendjer  of  the  corporation, 
and  by  becoming  a  member  of  it  he  agreed  to  give  it  every- 
thing which  he  then  had,  and  everything  which  he  might 
thereafter  acquire.  During  his  later  years  Wirth  wrote  and 
published  several  books  under  contracts  for  royalty  or  other- 
wise, and  performed  other  services  for  which  he  received 
comi)ensation,  and  he  was  allowed  by  the  order  to  expend 
the  sums  received  for  his  books  for  charitable  purposes  as 
the  agent  of  the  order.  At  the  time  of  his  death  there  was 
money  on  hand  and  also  copyrights  and  otlier  property.  It 
was  held  that  all  the  property  acquired  by  him  and  money 
not  disposed  of  at  his  death  belonged  to  the  order  of  St. 


( 'OilMI' X IT V  S()( '  1 1  :t I i:s  1 7:». 

Benedict  ol"  >.'ew  Jersey,  aiul  not  to  his  adniiiiistiator,  nor 
to  his  heirs  or  next  oi"  kin,  and  that  an  action  conld  be  main 
tained  by  the  order  to  recover  this  property.  The  court  also 
held  that  the  contract  inclnded  in  the  vow  of  poverty  was 
not  void  as  allej^ed  on  tlie  gronnd  ol'  jnihlic  policy  bnt  was 
a  valid  contract.  By  it  all  that  he  acquired  during  his  life- 
time became  tlie  i)ro])erty  of  the  order.  When  he  <li('d  every- 
thing that  he  left  belonged  to  the  order,  and  tliongh  the  title 
to  it  stood  in  his  name  that  fact  did  not  make  it  the  property 
of  his  heirs.  Order  of  St.  Benedict  of  New  .Jersey  v  Stein- 
hauser,  171)  Fed.  (Minn.)  i;JT.  See  same  case  in  li-i  S.  Ct. 
(U.  S.  Sup.)  9:^2. 

The  judgment  in  this  case  was  reversed  by  the  Circuit 
Court  of  Appeals  (Steinhauser  v  Order  of  St.  Benedict,  V.U 
Fed.  289,  March,  1912)  and  it  was  there  held  that  the  canon 
law  is  of  no  intrinsic  authority  ontside  the  jnrisdiction  of 
its  origin  or  countries  observing  that  system  of  law,  except 
as  it  is  sanctioned  by  statute  or  immemorial  usage;  that 
in  this  country  it  is  tlie  inherent  ami  natural  right  of  every 
person  to  acquire  and  hold  property  in  his  own  right  and 
this  right  must  be  maintained  by  the  state;  that  the  legal 
title  to  a  possession  of  the  ])roi)erty  in  controver.sy  was  in 
Wirth  at  the  time  of  his  death,  and  under  the  statute  of 
Minnesota  would  descend  to  his  legal  heirs,  and  ihal  the 
order  of  St.  Benedict  was  not  entitled  to  such  |»roperly. 

Various  questions  relating  to  I'^ather  ^^'iI•tll's  nieniber.ship 
in  the  order,  the  rights  of  his  administrator  and  ol  the  i»ul» 
lishers  of  his  books,  including  also  the  rights  of  the  order 
itself  were  considered  in  I'enziger  v  Steinhauser,  1."!  Fe<l. 
151,  where  the  character  of  the  oi-dei-  is  again  desi  libed. 

Separatists.  In  IS! 7  members  of  an  association  calk'd  Se|>- 
aratists  emigrated  from  W'iirttendu'rg,  in  (lermany,  to  the 
United  States.  In  (Jernumy  they  had  been  |)ersecuted  on 
account  of  their  religion.  In  that  country  they  smiglit  to 
establish  themselves  by  j>ur(liasing  land,  but  they  found 
that  the  laws  would  not  allow  them  this  privilege.  Dis- 
heartened by  persecution   and   injustice.   Iliey  came  to  this 


171        Tin;  ("i\  iL  LAW  AM)  Tin:  ciirKcii 

codiiliv  ill  piii'siiil  (»r  civil  .'Uid  rclif^ioiis  lihcrly.  Tlicy  ar- 
rived ill  riiil;i»l«'l|»lii;i  in  n  dcsliliitc  coiidit ion,  and  were 
aided  by  the  Quakers  in  Philadelphia  and  London,  and  en- 
ahlccl  to  ti-avel  to  Ohio,  wlnTe  they  settled.  A  lar}j;e  majority 
of  Ihe  society  (•<Misisled  of  women  and  children.  Whihe  the 
society  was  in  Philadelphia  they  i)nrchased,  in  the  name  of 
the  chief  meniher  of  the  society,  5,500  acres  of  land  in  Zoar. 
Ohio.  They  found  the  jn-ojieily  jtractically  a  wilderness. 
They  were  economical  and  industrious.  In  April,  1810,  the 
society  ])repared  articles  of  association,  signed  by  5?>  males 
and  104  females.  xVmong  other  things  the  articles  provided 
for  a  commnnity  of  property.  The  members  renounced  all 
individual  ownership  of  property.  The  business  was  to  be 
conducted  by  three  trustees  elected  annually,  and  members 
who  might  leave  the  society  were  to  receive  no  compensation 
for  labor  or  ]>roperty,  except  by  a  vote  of  the  majority. 
Anien<led  articles  of  association  were  formed  in  1S24.  The 
articles  contained  numerous  details  relative  to  the  owner- 
shi]>  of  the  property,  and  the  administration  of  the  society's 
allairs.  In  18:^>2  the  society  was  incorporated  by  the  law  of 
Ohio. 

At  first  there  was  a  division  of  the  property,  each  family 
selecting  as  many  acres  as  it  could  reasonably  imju'ove,  but 
it  was  abandoned  before  the  first  articles  of  association  were 
adopted.  ''It  appears  that  by  great  industry,  economy,  and 
good  management  and  energy,  the  settlement  at  Zoar  has 
prospered  more  than  anj^  part  of  the  surrounding  country. 
It  sur])asses  probably  all  other  neighborhoods  in  the  State 
in  the  neatness  and  productiveness  of  its  agriculture,  in  the 
mechanic  arts,  and  in  manufacturing  by  machinery.  The 
value  of  the  ]>ro])erty  is  now  (lS52i  estimated  to  be  more 
than  a  million  of  dollars.  This  is  a  most  extraordinary 
advance  by  the  labor  of  that  community,  about  two  thirds 
of  which  consists  of  females.'' 

An  action  was  commenced  by  heirs  of  one  of  the  original 
proj)rietors  for  a  partition  of  the  property,  but  it  was  held 
that  all  individual  rights  of  property  became  merged  in  the 


COMMUNITY  SOCIETIES  175 

title  of  the  association.  There  was  uo  descent  ot  inupeity 
in  the  ordinary  sense  upon  the  death  of  a  member  of  the 
community.  If  members  separate  themselves  from  the  so- 
ciety, their  interest  in  the  property  ceases,  and  new  mem- 
bers that  may  be  admitted  under  the  articles  enjoy  the 
advantages  common  to  all.  The  action  for  ])artition  could 
not  be  maintained,    (loesele  v  Eimelcr,  14  How.  ( ('.  S. )  580. 

For  a  later  case  involving  the  same  subject.  ;iim1  with  the 
same  result,  see  (Jasely  v  Separatists  Society  of  Zuar.  K5 
Ohio  St.  144. 

Shakers.    See  the  separate  article  on  this  topic  below. 


CONFESSION  OF  FAITH 

Defincil,  17(). 

Defined.  A  confession  of  faith  is  simply  the  construrtion 
which  a  particnhir  religions  organization  gives  to  the  H0I3' 
Book.    Boyles  v  Koberts,  222  Mo.  613. 


170 


CONGREGATION 

Public,  defined,  177. 
Defined,  177. 
Government,  178. 

Public,  Defined.  What  is  nece.ssary  to  constitute  a  con- 
gregation has  not  been  very  strictly  defined,  but  it  has  been 
commonly  considered  that  ''where  two  or  three  are  gathered 
together"  there  is  the  sufticient  number  to  constitute  a  con- 
gregation. Barnes  v  Shore,  1  Robertson's  Eccles.  Rep. 
(Eng.)  .S82. 

Followed  in  Freeland  v  Neale,  1  Robt.  Eccles.  (Eng.)  618, 
where  proceedings  were  taken  against  a  clergjinan  lor  pub- 
licly reading  prayers,  j)reaching,  and  administering  tlie 
sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Sui»])er  in  an  unconsecrated  build- 
ing called  Sackville  College  Chapel,  without  a  license  of, 
and  contrarj^  to  the  iidiibilion  of  the  l)ishop  of  tlie  diocese. 
It  was  claimed  in  defense  that  the  rea<ling  of  i)rayers  in  the 
college  chapel,  was  not  a  public  reading,  for  tlie  reason  1li:il 
the  members  of  the  college  constituted  a  ])rivate  family  or 
household.  But  it  also  appeared  that  strangers  were  some- 
times present  at  chapel  service.  Tlie  court  said  it  was 
impossible  to  say  that  the  assenddage  was  a  private  fannly. 
and  under  the  circumstances  the  reading  of  prayers  was  a 
public  reading  and  contrary  to  tlie  rules. 

Defined.  "The  congregation,  bcfoi-e  tlu^  sale  of  pews,  con- 
sists of  those  who  have  in  f.icl  uiiilcd  together,  and  by 
mutual  agreement  nn<ler  seiiK  «>r  liy  .my  less  formal  mode, 
by  the  subscriidion  of  ])ai)ers  oi-  »»llu>rwise,  have  agreed  lo 
form  a  religious  society,  and  have  contributed,  or  bound 
themselves  to  contribute,  toward  the  cost  of  buildings  and 
the  sui)i»ort  of  ]>ul)lic  woi-.^hij)."  "Wliei-e  |t('\\s  Ikuc  been 
sold   or  have  been   assigned   and   set    ajtai'l,   to   be   held    in 

177 


ITS  TTiK  ('I\  II.   LAW  AND  TFIi:  CUVlim 

K(>ver;ill_v,  (liis  is  ((Micliisive  evidence  lliiil  stidi  jiewliolders 
iire  memheis  af  the  coiij^rcj^alion."  Attorney  General  v  I'ro- 
IM-ieJors  of  I'\'(leral  Street  Meeting;  House  in  Boston,  '.*  (Jray 
(Mass.  I   1,  44. 

Government.  An  indei)en(lent  congregation  may  be  gov- 
erned by  tlie  inajoi'ity  of  its  own  niend»erslii|),  but  a  congre- 
•^ation  connectiMl  with  any  given  (hMioniinat i(»n  must  submit 
to  the  system  of  discipline  peculiar  to  the  body  witli  which 
it   is  coMiieiled.     Krecker  v  Shirev,  HJ:',  I'a.  it'.'A. 


CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCH 

Definition,  179. 

Described,  ISO. 

Organization,  general  principles,  183. 

Advisory  councils,  1S3. 

Deacons,  status,  183. 

Home  Missionary  Society,  183. 

Minister,  mode  of  settlement,  184. 

Minister,  contract  of  settlement,  184. 

Missions,  185. 

Platform,  185. 

Republican  government,  185. 

Saybrook  platform,  185. 

Definition.  "The  term  'Congregatioiialist,'  a.s  used  to 
designate  a  religious  sect,  is  not  unknown  in  I'^ngland ;  but 
in  England,  Congregationalists  and  Indejiendents  are  now 
and  always  have  been  one  and  the  same  denomination ;  an<l 
the  two  terms  are  there  used  indillerently,  to  signify  the 
same  sect  and  the  same  system  of  ecclesiastical  i)olity." 
"At  the  time  of  the  first  emigration  to  New  Kngland  the 
colonists  were  Congregational  and  indopendcnt  in  their 
o])inions."  As  early  as  1(140  tlie  cliui-clics  in  New  I'ngland 
were  denominated  Congregational,  ainl  were  not  known  as 
Independent.  Congrogationalisls  jiihI  liidciKMidcnts  were 
in  their  origin  the  same  religions  sect  :  llicy  sprung  in  (he 
commencement  from  the  same  piinciplc,  !<»  wit.  ili;it  cadi 
church  and  congregation  were  indc|»ciidciil  of  :ill  others. 
It  was  u]»on  tliis  Inndaniental  jirinciple  of  church  polity 
and  discipline  that  Congregati«»n;ilisls  scpiinitcd  Ironi  i'rcs- 
byterians  and  I'vpiscojtalians.  and  forincd  Ihciiisclvcs  into  a 
new  ami  <listin<-t  dcnoniiiuition,  and  not  on  account  of  any 
difference  in  matters  of  fiiitli  an<I  doctrine,  for  in  doctrine 
tl ley  agreed  snbstanlially  with  Iheoliu'r  rrotesi;ints.  "Tliey 
held  that  the  Scrijilures  were  the  only  standard  and  test  of 

179 


is(>        'I'lii:  ri\  II.  LAW  AND  'I'm:  ciii  kcii 

religions  Inilli;  llial  no  cliiU'cii  was  hound  Ity  any  gcniTal 
creed  or  conftiSHion  of  faith,  which  iniglit  be  set  forth  as  an 
exposition  of  the  doctrines  taught  in  the  Scriptures;  that 
it  was  the  right  and  duty  of  each  cliurch,  and  of  each  individ- 
ual to  resort  directly  to  the  Scrij)tures  as  the  source  of 
Divine  truth;  that  each  church  was  at  liberty  to  settle  its 
own  articles  of  belief,  provided  they  were  founded  on  the 
Scriptures,  and  acknowledged  Christ  as  head  and  Master." 
"lOach  church  had  the  riglit  to  choose  and  change  its  own 
standard  of  religious  character  and  doctrine,  for  nieniber- 
shij)  and  fellowship."  "The  system  of  fellowships  and  asso- 
ciations among  churches  and  ministers  appears  to  have  been 
unknown  for  some  years  after  the  first  settlement  of  New 
England,  but  began  to  come  into  use  as  early  as  lOol." 
"'The  ministers  united  in  associations;  they  assembled  in 
councils,  and  synods,  and  recommended  with  all  the  author- 
ity of  united  opinion  in  a  body  of  men  who  then  had  the 
real  control  in  matters  civil  as  well  as  religious,  rules  of 
discipline  and  articles  of  faith."  From  the  opinion  of  Judge 
l*erley  in  Attorney  General  ex  rel  Abbot  v  Dublin,  38  N.  H. 
459. 

"A  Congregational  church  is  a  voluntary  association  of 
Christians  united  for  discipline  and  worship,  connected 
with,  and  forming  a  part  of  some  religious  society,  having 
a  legal  existence."    Anderson  v  Brock,  3  Me.  243. 

Described.  The  church  is  composed  of  those  persons,  being 
members  of  such  parish  or  religious  society,  who  unite  them- 
selves together  for  the  purpose  of  celebrating  the  Lord's 
Supper.  They  may  avail  themselves  of  their  union  and 
association,  for  other  purposes  of  mutual  support  and  edi- 
fication in  piety  and  morality,  or  otherwise,  according  to 
such  terms  of  church  covenant  as  they  may  think  it  expe- 
dient to  adopt.  But  such  other  purposes  are  not  essential 
to  their  existence  and  character  as  a  church.  The  body  of 
communicants  gathered  into  church  order,  according  to  the 
established  usage  in  any  town,  parish,  precinct,  or  religious 
society  established  according  to  law,  and  actually  connected 


CONOKKGATIONAL  CHURCH  ISl 

and  associated  therewith,  lor  i-cligicMis  idirposes  lor  the  time 
beiug,  is  to  be  cousideied  as  the  cliuicli  of  such  society  as 
to  all  questions  of  property  depending  upon  that  relation. 
Stebbins  v  .Jennings,  10  J'ick.  (Mass.j   172. 

A  parish  and  church  are  bodies  with  tlillereut  jjuwers. 
A  regularly  gathered  Congregational  church  is  composed 
of  a  number  of  persons,  associated  by  a  covenant  or  agree- 
ment of  church  fellowship,  princijially  for  the  jiurpose 
of  celebrating  the  rites  of  the  Supper  and  of  baptism. 
They  elect  deacons;  and  the  minister  of  the  parish  is  also 
admitted  a  member.  The  deacons  are  made  a  corporation, 
to  hold  property  for  the  use  of  the  church,  and  they  are 
accountable  to  the  mendters.  The  mendx'rs  of  a  church  are 
generally  inhabitants  of  the  parish ;  but  this  inhabitancy  is 
not  a  necessary  qualification  for  a  church  member.  This 
body  has  no  power  to  contract  with  or  to  settle  a  minister, 
that  power  residing  wholly  in  the  i)arish,  of  which  the  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  who  are  inhabitants,  are  a  part.  The 
parish,  when  the  ministerial  ollice  is  vacant,  from  an  ancient 
and  respectable  usage,  wait  until  the  church  have  made 
choice  of  a  minister,  and  have  requested  the  concurrence  of 
the  parish.  If  the  pai-ish  concur,  then  a  contract  of  settle- 
ment is  made  wholly  between  the  parish  and  the  minister, 
and  is  obligatory  only  on  them.  The  proceedings  of  the 
church,  so  far  as  they  relate  to  the  settlement,  are  only  a 
nomination  of  a  minister  to  tlie  ])iirish,  which  nniy  be  con- 
curred in  or  rejected.  This  view  of  the  subject  must  be 
confined  to  imrislu's  created  by  the  genei-al  laws  of  the  land, 
and  not  extended  to  j)arishes  iiicori>orated  specially  with 
ditlerent  i)Owers.  Burr  v  First  Parish  in  Sandwich,  !)  Mass. 
Re.  27(j. 

The  character,  powers,  and  duties  of  chunlu's  gathered 
within  the  various  Congregational  parishes  and  religious 
societies  in  this  commonwealth  have  been  definitely  known 
and  understood  from  the  earliest  period  of  its  existence. 
Indeed,  the  main  object  of  the  first  settlers  of  the  country, 
in  their  emigration   Iiithci-,  was  to  iiiaiiag(>  their  religious 


1S2  Tin:  CIVIL  LAW  AND  Till:  cm   IMII 

siirairs  in  I  heir  own  wiiy.  The  earliest  lliinj^'  lliey  estal»]islie(l 
was  a  con^i-e^ation  aii<l  (V)nj>;r(';;uli<)iial  cinircli.  The  legal 
cliaraclei-  of  I  lie  Cliurcli  was  well  understood.  It  was  a 
body  ot"  persons,  nienibei's  of  a  Conj^i-ej^ational  or  other  reli- 
gious society,  established  lor  the  promotion  and  support  ol" 
public  worsliij),  which  body  was  set  apart  from  the  rest  of 
the  society,  for  peculiar  religious  observances,  for  the  cele- 
bration of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  for  mutual  edification. 
They  were  usually  formed  and  regulated  by  a  covenant,  or 
articles  of  agreement,  which  each  se])arate  church  formed 
for  itself,  sometimes  with  the  advice  of  other  churches,  by 
which  they  mutually  stipulated  to  assist  each  other,  by 
advice  and  counsel,  in  pursuing  a  Christian  course  of  life, 
to  submit  to  i>roper  censure  and  discipline  for  any  devia- 
tion therefrom,  and,  genera  11}%  to  promote  the  essential 
growth  and  welfare  of  each  other.  They  might  consist  of 
all  or  only  a  portion  of  the  adult  members  of  the  congrega- 
tion with  which  they  were  connected.  The  earliest  statutes 
of  the  colony  recognize  the  churches,  not  as  corporations,  or 
even  as  quasi  corporations,  but  each  as  an  aggregate  body 
of  Christians  in  each  religious  society,  collected  together 
and  united  by  covenant  and  by  usage  and  recognized  by 
law;  and  these  statutes  provide  that  their  rights  and  usages 
shall  be  respected,  and  that  they  shall  be  encouraged  in  the 
exercise  and  maintenance  of  the  same.  Charters  and 
General  Laws  of  the  Colony  and  Trovince  of  Massachusetts 
Bay,  100.  Weld  v  May,  9  Cush.  (Mass.  I  181 ;  see  also  North 
Carolina  Christian  Conference  v  Allen,  15G  N.  C.  524. 

"A  Congregational  church  is,  by  tlie  institution  of  Christ, 
a  part  of  the  militant  visible  church,  consisting  of  a  company 
of  saints  by  calling,  united  into  one  body  by  a  holy  covenant, 
for  the  public  worshij)  of  Cod  and  the  mutual  edification 
one  of  another,  in  the  fellowship  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  Cam- 
bridge riatform  quoted  in  Holt  v  Downs,  58  N.  H.  170. 
where  it  was  further  said  that  what  the  Congregationalists 
established  in  Massachusetts  was,  not  the  reign  of  the 
parish  over  the  clninli,  but  the  reign  of  the  church  over  the 


CONGKKdATIOXAL  ClUKCll  is:i 

pari.sli  aiul  every  other  civil  inslitutiou.  "We  cannot  but 
take  judicial  notice  of  the  historical  fact  that  Aniericau 
Congregationalism  has  always  been  a  vehement  and  uncom- 
promising jirotest  against  a  union  of  a  church  and  a  secular 
body,  uot  revocable  at  the  ])leasure  of  the  church." 

Organization,  General  Principles.  The  funthimental  idea  of 
Congregational  polity  under  which  the  churches  of  New 
England  were  gathered,  was  that  the  particular  estates  of 
visible  saints  who  under  Christ,  their  head,  are  statedly 
joined  together  for  ordinary  communion  with  one  another 
in  all  the  ordinances  of  Christ,  are  particular  churches,  hav- 
ing right  to  choose  their  own  officers,  and  discipline,  admon- 
ish, and  excommunicate  scandalous  and  oll'ending  members. 
Gibbs  V  Gilead  Ecclesiastical  Society,  88  Conn.  15o. 

Advisory  Councils.  The  system  of  advisory  councils  is  an 
integral  and  vital  i)art  of  the  i)olity  of  the  Congregational 
Church,  and  in  this  ca.se  is  expressly  recognized  by  tlie  con- 
stitution of  the  local  church.  Arthur  v  Nortield  Congrega- 
tional Church.  7:\  Conn.  718. 

Deacons,  Status.  In  Boutell  v  Cowdin,  9  Mass.  254,  it  was 
held  that  the  deacons  of  the  society  did  not  constitute  a  cor- 
poration for  the  purpose  of  receiving  and  nuinaging  a  fund 
for  the  supi)ort  of  a  minister,  and  that  a  juomissory  note 
given  to  the  deacons  in  aid  of  a  fund  for  the  support  of  a 
minister  of  a  parish  was  void  as  without  consi<leration. 

Home  Missionary  Society.  Tlie  testatrix  nmde  a  bequest 
to  the  Home  Missionary  Society  of  America.  There  was  no 
.society  bearing  the  mime  mentioned  in  the  will.  The  (pies- 
tion  in  this  ca.se  involved  llie  i(k'ntity  of  tlie  society  intemh'd 
as  the  object  of  her  bounty.  The  legacy  was  claimed  by 
the  Congregational  Home  Missionary  Society.  This  so<-iety 
was  organized  in  New  York  in  1S71,  niuh'r  tiie  name  of  tiie 
American  Home  Missionary  Society.  Originally,  this  asso- 
ciation, then  unincori)orated,  beginning  in  ISlMI,  had  been 
composed  of  re|)res('ntalives  or  membei-s  of  four  church 
bodies,  namely,  the  Congregation;!  1.  l>nitli  Hcrornied.  Prcs- 
bvterian,  and  Associate  Kerornicd  ;  ImiI   in    IS.'IT  the  IMcsby- 


ISI  Tin;  (IN  II.   LAW   AM)  Till':  CiiriMil 

f('i-i;iii  ('liiii'cli  (livi<l»'<l  into  two  Crunches,  Iciiowii  as  Old 
and  New  Schools,  ami  only  the  New-Kchool  branch  con- 
tinued the  connection  witii  the  mission  work  cai-ried  on  by 
the  American  Home  .Missionary  Society.  The  local  J'reshy- 
terian  (linicli  to  wliicli  the  testatrix  belonged  for  many 
years  made  contributions  to  the  American  Home  Missionaiy 
Society. 

A  will  ^i\inj;  a  legacy  to  the  American  Home  Missionary 
Society  was  made  in  1802,  and  another  in  \S'.)V>,  bnt  it  did 
not  api)ear  that  the  testatrix  knew  that  in  IcSDij  the  name  of 
the  society  had  been  changed.  The  court  held  that  the  Con- 
gregational Home  Missionary  Society,  being  the  corporate 
successor  of  the  society'  named  in  the  will,  was  entitled  to 
the  legacy.  Congregational  Home  Missionary  Society  v  Van 
Arsdale,  58  N.  J.  l':(i.  !*1»:{. 

Minister,  Mode  of  Settlement.  From  the  ancient  and  im- 
memorial usage  of  Congregational  churches,  before  the  par- 
ish settle  a  minister  he  preaches  with  them  as  a  candidate 
lor  the  settlement,  with  the  intent  of  declaring  his  religious 
faith,  that  his  hearers  may  judge  whether  they  approve  his 
theological  tenets.  And  if  he  is  afterward  settled,  it  is 
understood  that  the  greater  part  of  the  parish  and  the  min- 
ister agree  in  their  religious  sentiments  and  opinions.  Burr 
V  Sandwich.  1)  Mass.  27(1. 

Minister,  Contract  of  Settlement.  In  a  contract  by  which 
a  minister  is  settled  over  a  Congregational  parish,  it  seems 
that  a  stipulation  that  the  contract  shall  be  binding  on  the 
parish  until  the  minister  shall  be  dismis.sed  by  a  mutual 
ecclesiastical  council,  which  shall  be  called  for  that  purpose 
by  a  majority  of  the  church  belonging  to  the  parish,  is  not 
illegal ;  but  if  it  be  illegal  and  void,  still  the  parish  cannot 
dissolve  the  contract  at  their  own  pleasure,  without  some 
misconduct  on  the  part  of  the  minister.  Peckhani  v  North 
Tarish,  Haverhill,  IG  Pick.  (Mass.)  274. 

An  action  to  recover  the  income  of  the  pari.sh  fund  will 
be  found  rejiorted  under  same  title  in  19  Pick.  (Mass.)  559. 
It  was  held  that  the  i)laintiO:"  was  not  entitled  to  recover. 


C0N0RE(JATlONAL  CliLliCU  IS.'j 

Missions.  Testatrix  gave  certain  fiiiuls  to  be  used  for 
carrying  on  women's  work  in  foreign  lands  and  to  women's 
work  in  Iiome  lands  "not  Tank  Home."  The  bequest  for 
work  in  home  lands  was  held  payable  to  the  Women's  Home 
Missionary  Union  of  the  Congregational  Churches  of  Michi- 
gan. The  bequest  for  foreign  lands  was  held  payable  to 
the  Women's  Board  of  Missions  of  the  Interior.  Both  soci- 
eties were  organized  under  the  ausjiices  of  the  Congrega- 
tional Church. 

There  was  also  a  bequest  for  I'rotestant  Missionary  Work 
among  poor  colored  peojjle  of  the  South.  This  bequest  was 
held  payable  to  the  American  Missionary  Association.  Gil- 
christ V  Corliss,  155  Mich.  lliO. 

Platform.  Congregationalists  have  their  code,  called  the 
Platform  of  Church  Discipliue,  agreed  upon  at  Cambridge 
in  1G48,  and  afterward  ratified  in  IGSO.  They  have  also 
their  confession  of  faith,  in  substance  agreeing  witli  the 
Presbyterian  and  the  Episcopal,  and  differing  little  from 
the  Romish.  Among  Congregationalists  each  church  is  inde- 
pendent if  it  chooses  to  be  so.  Eacli  dioo.ses  and  expels  its 
members  and  its  oillcers,  and  the  sentence  is  linal.  Vah\i 
Congregational  churdi  acknowledged  no  superior  on  eaith. 
Muzzy  V  Wilkins,  Smith's  X.  II.  Ke]).  1. 

Republican  Government.  The  dislingnisliing  feature  of  the 
churches  of  the  Congregational  denomination  is  that  each 
is  a  conij)lete  and  in<kq)endent  republic,  and  adopts  its 
own  laws,  its  own  constructions  of  the  Scripture  doctrine, 
its  own  church  ]K)lity;  and  in  none  of  these  resjiccfs  is  it 
subject  to  any  control  by  any  othei-  oi-  more  comprehensive 
organization.  Cape  v  Plymouth  Congi-cgational  Church, 
lao  Wis.  174. 

Saybrook  Platform.  In  order  to  establish  a  more  energetic 
government  the  General  Assenddy  provided  foi-  the  calling 
of  a  synod  at  Saybrook.  The  svucmI  met  imrsuant  to  the 
act,  and  adopte<l  a  confession  of  faith,  heads  of  government, 
and  articles  of  discipline.  tog<'ther  constituting  the  plat- 
form, and  the  object  and   |ini|»<>se.  it    tluis  njijiears,  was  to 


ISC,  Tin:  ('I\IL  F.AW  AND  Till:  Cliriiril 

(•oiirt'(ler;i(o  llic  clniiclics  into  ;i  jXTiiiaiicnt  esljil>lisliiii('iit, 
and  ])r<)vi«lo  for  ;i  j^ood  ami  rcj^nlar  iHsue  in  cases  of  dilli- 
cnlty  or  occlcsiaslical  discijdine,  llu;  regular  introduction 
of  <-:indida<('s  in<o  the  ministry,  and  tlie  i)romotion  of  onler 
and  li.ii-niony  anionjj  the  ministers  and  churches.  This  was 
not  simidy  a  const ilution,  but  an  instrument  for  the  con- 
federation of  the  churches  under  standing  authoritative 
councils,  for  the  perfection  of  discipline,  the  easing  of  dilli- 
culties,  the  preservation  of  the  faith,  and  tlie  rendering  of 
assistance  on  all  occasions  ecclesiastical.  Gibhs  v  Gilead 
Ecclesiastical  yocietj',  08  Conn.  153. 


CONSCIENCE 


Right  inalienable,  187. 
Rule,  187. 


Right  Inalienable.  The  rights  of  coiisciLMK-e  are  inalien- 
able. Mere  civil  or  political  rights  could  be  surrendered  to 
the  government,  or  to  society  in  order  to  secure  the  protec- 
tion of  other  rights;  but  the  rights  of  conscience  could  not 
be  thus  surrendered ;  nor  could  society  or  government  have 
any  claim  or  right  to  assume  to  take  them  away,  or  to  inter- 
fere or  intermeddle  with  them,  except  so  far  as  to  protect 
society  against  any  acts  or  administrations  of  one  sect  or 
persuasion,  which  might  tend  to  disturb  the  public  peace  or 
affect  the  rights  of  others.  But  when  tlie  rights  of  con- 
science come  in  question,  the  right  of  worshiping  Clod  either 
privately  or  publicly;  the  right  of  making  profession  of  any 
religion,  privately  or  publicly,  the  entertaining  of  any  reli- 
gious sentiments  and  the  proi)er  exi)ression,  maintenance 
and  vindication  of  them  whether  in  private  or  in  public; 
the  right  of  belonging  to  any  persuasion,  which  word,  in  the 
sense  in  which  it  is  here  used,  means  a  creed  or  belief,  or  a 
sect  or  party  adhering  to  a  creed  or  system  of  o])inions,  the 
belonging  to  any  sect  or  denf>mination  entertaining  and  pro 
fessing  and  in  a  jjrojK'i-  way  striving  to  maintain  and  to 
teach  both  privately  and  publicly  any  religious  iit'cd  or 
belief  whatsoever,  these  riglits  are  all  held  to  be  unalienable. 
are  secured  and  guaranteed  by  the  const  lint  ion.  Hale  v 
Everett,  .5:?  N.  H.  1. 

Rule.  In  this  land  of  liberty,  civil  and  religions,  con- 
science is  subject  to  no  human  law;  its  riglils  ;ire  not  to  be 
invaded,  or  even  questioned,  s(»  long  as  its  di«tales  are 
obeyed,    consistently    with    the    harmony,   good    order,    and 

187 


188        'nil:  ('i\  iL  LAW  ANh  'riii;  ("iiiinii 

pciHc  (»r  llic  cuiiiiiiiiiiil  \ .  Willi  us  iiiodts  of  liiilli  :iM(i  woi-- 
sliij)  iinisl  al\v;iys  be  muiimtous  jiikI  vai'iaiit  ;  and  it  \h  not 
the  province  of  eillier  braiuli  of  the  governineut  to  control 
or  restrain  llicni  when  they  appear  .sincere  and  harmleHS. 
Waite  V  Merrill,  et  al,  4  Me.  90. 


CONSTITUTION 

Defined,  effect,  189. 

Defined,  Effect.  The  con.stitntion  is  the  contract  of  asso- 
ciation in  churches  aiid  all  unincorporated  societies.  It  is 
binding  upon  all  portions  of  the  chnrch,  as  well  as  all  judi- 
catories thereof.  It  is  the  sui)renie  law  of  the  church  and 
must  be  adhered  to  by  every  part  thereof.  Boyles  v  Roberts, 
222  Mo.  613. 


189 


CUMBERLAND  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH 

History,  190. 

Courts,  191. 

General  Assembly,  192. 

General  Assembly,  powers,  192. 

Name,  doctrines,  etc.,  how  changed,  193. 

Presbytery,  193. 

Session,  193. 

Synod,  194. 

Unincorporated  society,  liabihty,  194. 

Union  with  Presbyterian  Church,  194. 

History.  The  Cumberland  I're.sbytei-ian  Cliui-tli  was  or- 
ganized in  Dickson  County,  Tennessee,  February  4,  1810. 
It  was  tlie  ontj2:rowtli  of  the  great  revival  of  ISOO,  one  of  the 
most  powerful  revivals  that  this  country  has  ever  witnessed. 
The  founders  of  the  church  were  Finis  Ewing.  Samuel  King, 
and  Samuel  McAdow.  Tliey  were  ministers  in  what  is  now 
commonly  known  as  the  Northern  Presbyterian  Church,  but 
they  rejected  the  doctrine  of  election  and  reprobation 
as  taught  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  These 
three  ministers,  on  the  date  above  referred  to,  met  in  a  log 
cabin,  and  organized  an  independent  presbytery,  calling  it 
the  (Cumberland  Presbytery,  and  this  was  the  beginning  of 
the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church.  In  three  years  the 
church  had  become  sufficiently  large  to  form  three  presby- 
teries, and  these  ])resbyteries  in  1813  met  and  constituted  a 
synod.  This  synod,  in  a  ])a])er  called  the  ''Brief  Statement," 
set  forth  tlie  ]K»ints  wherein  the  Cinnberland  Presbyterian 
dissented  from  tlie  ^^'estminster  Confession.  They  were  as 
follows:  "I.  That  there  are  no  eternal  reprobates.  2.  That 
Christ  died  not  for  a  part  only,  but  for  all  mankind.  3.  That 
all  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  saved  through  Christ  and 
the  .sanctitication  of  the  Spirit.  4.  That  the  spirit  of  God 
operates  on  the  world,  or  as  coextensively  as  Christ  has 

190 


CUMBERLAND  PRESBYTKRIAX  CIlURCn      1!»1 

made  atoiieuieiit,  iu  such  a  iiianner  as  to  leave  all  men  inex- 
cusable." 

lu  1814  the  synod  i-evise<l  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith  in  the  particulars  above  referred  to.  Subsequently 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian 
(,'huroh  was  formed;  and  in  ISI*!)  this  judicature  made  such 
changes  in  tiie  form  of  government  as  were  demanded  by  the 
formation  of  this  church  court, 

Tlie  CmnlxM-land    Presbyterian   Church   grew   in   nund)ers 
and  in  influence,  especially  in  the  State  in  which  it  was  or- 
ganized, and  adjacent  States,  but  its  territory  was  not  lim- 
ited to  these.     In  11)0(>  it  contained  17  synods.   1  1  \   presby 
teries,  and  a  total  membership  of  nearly  20U,tJU0. 

In  1903  committees  were  appointed  by  this  denomination 
and  by  the  reguhir  Presbyterians  to  consider  the  (piestion 
of  a  union  of  the  two  denominations.  This  j)lan  of  union 
was  consummated  by  the  adoption  of  the  report  on  \inion  Ity 
the  General  Assembly  held  in  Decatur,  111.,  in  May,  ll»()(i. 
This  General  Assembly  thereupon  adjourned  to  meet  there- 
after only  as  a  component  part  of  the  General  Assembly 
of  the  Northern  Presbyterian  Church,  This  ]dan  of  union 
had  previously  been  adopted  by  a  vote  of  the  presbyteries, 
60  voting  in  favor,  and  51  against. 

The  dissenting  mend)ers  of  the  Decatur  Assenddy  jn-o- 
tested  against  the  action  of  the  majority  an<l  declared  them- 
selves to  be  the  true  General  Assembly  »»f  the  Cund>erland 
Presbyterian  Chui-ch.  Mack  v  Kiiiic.  IL'!»  (!;i.  1.  See  also 
Pres.  Ch.  v  ('undterland  Ch.,  215  111.  71.,  Landrith  v  lludgins, 
121  Tenn.  55(;,  Boyles  v  Roberts,  L»L'L'  Mo.  (i:u;,  Fussell  v  Hail, 
283  111.  73,  Brown  v  Clark,  102  Tex.  IVS.',. 

Courts.  The  constitution  of  the  clMircli  cicatcs  i-ertaiii 
cliurcli  courts.  It  declares  that  llie  goxcninieiit  of  the 
church  is  to  be  exer«-ised  in  some  certain  and  delinite  form. 
and  by  various  courts,  in  regulai-  gradation.  These  conrts 
are  denominated  chnrcli  sessions,  j)resbyteries.  syn<»ils.  ami 
the  General  As.sendtly.  The  jurisdiction  of  e.icli  of  iliese 
courts  is  defined   in   the  const itntion.     The  (linrch   session 


I!»L'  Till:  ('l\IL  LAW   AM)  '1111:  (IUKCII 

li;is  jni'isdici  ion  «»f  n  siiij;l('  clinicli.  Tlic  |»i'(*sl»yt('iT  li;is 
jiiiisdici  ion  aycv  llic  cliurcli  sessions  within  ;i  proscrilxMl 
district.  The  synod  h;is  jurisdiction  over  thrcf*  or  more 
jtrt'shyteries.  And  tlie  (Jcnoi-al  Asscnddy  luis  jurisdiction 
over  such  matters  as  concern  the  w  hole  clnirch.  Every  court 
is  (hM'liircd  to  hiive  tlie  riji^ht  to  resolve  (piestions  of  doctrine 
;ind  <lisci|»iine  seriously  and  reasonably  proposed.  And 
;iilhonj;h  e;Hh  court  exercises  exclusive  and  original  juris- 
diction over  all  matters  es]>ecially  l)cloiifi;ing  to  it,  the  lower 
courts  are  subject  to  the  review  and  control  of  the  higher 
courts  in  regular  gradation.  The  General  Assembly  has 
jurisdiction  to  review  and  decide  all  references  and  com- 
plaints regularly-  brought  before  it  from  the  inferior  courts, 
and  to  decide  all  questions  respecting  doctrine  and  dis- 
cipline, and  to  receive  under  its  jurisdiction  other  ecclesias- 
tical bodies  whose  organization  is  conformed  to  the  doctrine 
and  order  of  this  church.    Mack  v  Kime,  129  Ga.  1. 

General  Assembly.  The  General  Assembly  is  the  highest 
court  of  the  church  and  represents,  in  one  body,  all  the 
particular  churches  thereof,  and  constitutes  the  bond  of 
union,  peace,  correspondence,  and  mutual  confidence  among 
all  its  churches  and  courts.  It  must  meet  at  least  every  two 
years.  It  consists  of  commissioners  from  several  presby- 
teries according  to  a  ratio  specified  in  the  constitution. 
Each  presbytery  is  entitled  to  be  represented  by  one  min- 
ister and  one  ruling  elder.  Landrith  v  Hudgins,  121  Tenn. 
55(5. 

General  Assembly,  Powers.  Certain  members  of  this  society 
brought  an  action  against  certain  other  members  claiming 
to  be  adherents  of  the  Northern  Presbyterian  Church  in 
consequence  of  the  action  of  the  Decatur  Assembly  in  adopt- 
ing the  proposed  plan  of  union.  The  court  held  that  on  the 
question  as  to  whether  there  should  be  a  reunion  of  the 
Cumberland  I'resbyterian  Church  and  the  Northern  I*res- 
byterian  Church  it  was  for  the  determination  of  the  General 
Assembly  whether  these  two  organizations  were  in  accord 
with  each  other  as  to  doctrine  and  order.    The  question  was 


CUMBEKLAM)   I'KIOSBVTIOKIAN  CHUKCU       liKi 

decided  by  the  General  Assembly  wliicli  was  the  only  iii- 
bunal  having  jurisdiction,  and  the  civil  court  would  not 
attempt  to  revise  the  coiic-lusions  and  findinjjjs  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  The  General  Assembly  determined  that 
there  was  no  substantial  difference  between  the  doctrines 
and  teachings  o!  the  Cund)erland  I'resbyterian  and  the 
Northern  Presbyterian  Church,  and  therefore  tiie  (ieneral 
Assembly  might,  according  to  its  sound  judgment,  deter- 
mine the  further  question  whether  it  was  expedient  for  the 
two  denominations  to  form  a  union.  The  reunion  of  the  two 
churches  was  valid,  and  those  members  of  the  local  church 
who  adhered  to  the  new  organization  were  entitled  to  the 
possession  and  control  of  the  church  property.  Mack  v 
Kinie,  129  Ga.  1. 

Name,  Doctrines,  Etc.,  How  Changed.  The  only  way  under 
section  (JU  of  its  constitution  by  wliich  tiie  General  Assembly 
of  the  Cumberland  Tresbyterian  Cliurcli  would  change  the 
name  of  that  organization,  or  change  its  doctrines  or  faitli, 
was  by  proper  jimendments  ollered  as  1<»  their  own  con- 
fession of  faith  and  organic  law.  It  has  no  inherent  power 
to  wipe  out  the  name  "Cund)erland  Tresbyterian  Chinch," 
until  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  Assend)ly  it  has  asked  its 
presbyteries,  by  \v;iy  of  a  pro]»os('d  ;nnen<lment,  whether  or 
not  they  will  so  jtermit.  At  all  events,  the  people  of  the 
church  were  entitled  to  have  the  whole  (jucstion  submitted 
to  the  presbyteries.  We  do  not  think  that  the  (ieneral 
Assend)ly  had  power  to  determine  (his  (jucslion  without  a 
submission  to  the  presbytery.  There  is  nothing  in  any  part 
of  the  constitution  of  the  chnrch  which  conl'cis  (his  power 
upon  the  Assembly,  ami  by  secticm  L'r>  thiit  body  is  denied 
all  powers  not  expressly  conferred.  Boyles  v  Kober(s,  L*L*l2 
Mo.  01  :^. 

Presbytery.  .\  presbytery  consists  of  .ill  (he  ordniiu'd 
ministers  and  one  ruling  eldei-  r!'<»ni  eacii  chui-cii  widiin  a 
certain  <listrict.     Landriih  \    llndgins.  IL'I  Ten n.  ."».">(!. 

Session.  The  session  is  the  go\erning  agency  of  (he  c<tn- 
gregation.     The  session,   so   l;ir   ;is   comp().^cd   of  elders,   is 


1!M  Tin:  CIN  II.   LAW    AND   'I'lli:  ("III   IM'II 

itcjiIimI  Ity  (lie  Noicc  ol'  I  lie  people  who  coinposc  the  congre- 
ffatioii;  ;ni<l  liv  llie  coiiihiiied  voice  of  the  iireKbyterj',  the 
session.  :iii(l  llie  people,  the  miiiister  is  attaehed  to  the  eoii- 
ure^^alion.  Thus  the  session,  composed  of  the  leaders  and 
llie  minister,  is  created  l>_v  the  joint  action  of  the  individual 
eon <2:re;^a lion,  and  the  preshyterv.  The  con^rej^ation  is 
represented  in  the  j>resl»_vtery  by  an  elder  whom  I  he  session 
elects  to  that  body.  So  far  as  it  may  be  thon{i;bt  necessary, 
upon  any  subject,  to  obtain  the  voice  or  know  the  will  of 
the  congregation,  this  is  accomplished  by  the  session  bring- 
ing the  matter  before  the  congregation,  and  in  some  i)roper 
form  obtaining  the  sense  of  that  body.  The  church  session 
consists  of  the  minister  in  charge  and  two  or  more  ruling 
elders  of  a  particular  church.  Landrith  v  Hudgins,  121 
Tenn.  Hno. 

Synod.  The  synod  consists  of  all  the  ordained  ministers 
and  one  ruling  elder  from  each  church  in  a  district  compris- 
ing at  least  three  presbyteries.  Landrith  v  Hudgins,  121 
Tenn.  SHtl. 

Unincorporated  Society,  Liability.  A  note  was  given  by 
individuals  who  were,  in  fact,  trustees  of  the  .society,  and 
gave  the  note  in  behalf  of  the  society;  but  the  society  was 
unincorporated,  and  was  therefore  not  liable  on  the  instru- 
ment. Phoenix  Insurance  Company  v  Burkett,  72  Mo. 
App.  1. 

Union  with  Presbyterian  Church.  In  1003  negotiations 
were  instituted  between  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian 
Church  and  the  regular  Presbyterian  Church  for  the  reunion 
and  union  of  the  two  bodies  under  the  name  and  style  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  The 
plan  of  union  was  prepared  by  a  joint  committee  of  the 
two  denominations,  and  was  submitted  to  the  presbyteries 
thereof,  and  was  approved  by  a  majority  of  such  j>resby- 
teries,  taking  eftect  in  1906.  By  this  plan  the  Cumberland 
Presbyterian  Church  accepted  the  revised  confession  of  faith 
adoi)ted  by  the  I'resbyterian  Church  in  190:i.  and  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  each  denomination  adopted  appropriate 


cu:mberlant)  presbytt:riax  ('ih^rcit     i!»r> 

resolutions  in  1!)0(;  ck'chiiing  tlic  icsult  oi  tlie  vote  and  that 
the  union  of  the  two  denominations  had  become  etteetive.  A 
large  minority  of  tlie  Cnniberland  General  Assembly  of  1900 
protested  against  the  union,  and  in  several  States  litigation 
arose  concerning  the  effect  of  tlie  alleged  union  on  the  title 
to  church  j)roi>erty.  In  the  following  States  tlie  validity  of 
the  reunion  and  union  was  sustained,  namely:  Georgia, 
Mack  V  Kime,  129  Ga.  1;  Texas,  Brown  v  Clark,  102  Tex. 
323;  Kentucky,  Wallace  v  Hughes,  l.'U  Ky.  445;  (^ilifornia, 
I'ermaneut  Committee  of  Missions  v  Pacific  Synod,  l")?  Cal. 
105;  Indiana,  Ramsey  v  Hicks,  44  liui.  A]))),  400;  Illinois, 
I'resby.  Ch.  of  Lincoln  v  Cundj.  I*res.  Ch.,  245  111.  74,  IMeas- 
unt  Grove  Congregation  v  Riley,  24S  111.  004;  Arkansas, 
Sanders  v  Baggerly,  131  S.  W.  40;  Hayes  v  Manning,  172 
S.  W.  (Mo.)  cS!>7,  and  Alabama,  Harris  v  Crosby,  55  So.  231  ; 
also  Morgan  v  Gabard,  5S  So.  (Ala.)  902;  Oklahoma,  First 
Pres.  Ch.  Wagoner  v  Cumberland  Pres.  Ch.,  Wagoner,  12G 
P.  197.  In  tlie  following  Slates  the  union  was  declared 
invalid:  Missouri,  Boyles  v  Roberts,  222  Mo.  Gi:>;  Tennessee, 
Landrith  v  Hudgins,  121  Tenn.  55(>,  The  ojiinions  in  the 
foregoing  cases  include  much  historical  matter  and  also 
interesting  discussions  of  I'resbyterian  forms  of  govern- 
ment, confessions  of  faith,  and  doctrinal  standards,  and  ihe 
relations  between  civil  judicial  tribinials  and  church  judi- 
catories in  determining  various  ecclesiastical  questions. 
The  eleven  cases  above  cited  present  a  comprehensive  stu<ly 
and  review  of  numerous  ]»T'ol)h'nis  affecting  tlie  Presbyterian 
family  of  churehes.  In  I'lissell  v  Hail,  233  111.  7.1  the  court 
considered  the  uni<ni  of  the  two  churches,  but  declined  to 
entertain  jurisdiction  of  the  action  on  the  ground  that  it 
involved  only  an  ecclesiaslii  al  <|nesiion  Nxhidi  was  nut  sub- 
ject to  the  sui)ervision  of  <i\il  ((tmls. 

The  union  was  sustained  in  J'.aikley  v  Hayes,  2(K  V.  ."il9 
(Mo.),  August,  1!»i:5.  It  was  there  held  that  the  nnited 
church  became  vested  with  all  pi"(»|K'i-ty  lights  of  each  enii- 
stituent;  see  also  Sharp  v  Ilonhani,  2i:'.  1"\  (Tenn.)  (ItlO. 
Helm  V  Zarecor,  2i:'.  ImmI.   (Tenn.)  {US. 


DEACONS 


Baptist  Church,  196. 
Ecclesiastical  officer,  196. 


Baptist  Church.  Deacons  of  a  Baptist  Church  are  ex  officio 
trustees,  and  have  charge  and  control  of  its  i)roperty, 
records,  etc.    Fulbright  v  Higginbotham,  133  Mo.  6G8. 

Ecclesiastical  Officer.  The  office  of  deacon  "is  an  office  not 
created  or  exi)ressly  authorized  by  State  law,  but  is  one 
created  by  an  unincorporated  ecclesiastical  body,  and  filled 
by  election  by  a  body  which  possesses  no  corporate  powers 
or  functions.  Over  the  office,  and  over  the  election  to  it,  the 
courts  of  the  State  have  no  authoritj'  whatever;  they  are 
controlled  exclusively  by  an  unincorporated  membership  in 
an  organization  whose  unincori)()rated  tribunals  decide  for 
themselves,  and  decide  finally  upon  the  election."  Attorney- 
General  ex  rel.  Ter  Vree  v  Geerlings,  55  Mich.  5G2. 


196 


DENOMINATION 

Defined,  197. 

Defined.  Persuasion  refers  to  the  opinion,  convictiou  or 
belief  which  occasions  the  separation.  Sect  means  the  party 
persuaded,  or  avIio,  enlcrtaiiiiiij^  opinions  diMci-cnt  from  tlie 
rest,  are  cut  oil',  or  seitavatcd  from  the  main  body.  Denom- 
inatiou  is  the  next  step  in  llie  i)rocess.  It  signifies  the  name 
the  sect  acquires  when  actually  st'paratcd,  and  which  is 
generally  descrii)tive  of  the  i>rincipal  i)oints  in  ditlereuce. 
Muzzy  V  Wilkins,  Smith's  N.  H.  Rep.  1. 


197 


DLSCIPLES  OF  CHRIST 

Government,  l!)S. 

Meeting,  j)o\vers  of  minority,  198. 

Government.  Every  Discijtlos  roiijijrofjntion  is  prartif-ally 
iihlepeiMleiil  ;  oilier  congregations  of  the  same  denomination 
nujy  advise,  but  there  is  no  superior  tribunal  of  ai)peal. 
Alexander  Cam])bell,  the  Disciples'  greatest  pieacher,  if  not 
their  founder,  is  quoted  as  saying,  "It  (the  church)  knows 
nothing  of  superior  or  inferior  church  judicatories,  and  ac- 
knowledges no  laws,  no  canons  or  government,  other  than 
that  of  the  Monarch  of  tlie  Universe  and  its  laws."  Long  v 
Harvey,  177  ]»a.  St.  47.S. 

Meeting,  Powers  of  Minority.  This  society  was  organized 
in  lSo2  and  was  not  incorporated.  A  report  was  made  to 
the  Pennsylvania  conference  in  18S9  showing  that  there 
were  only  15  members  in  good  standing,  the  remaining  mem- 
bers having  been  excluded  without  notice  or  hearing.  In 
1800  a  movement  was  initiated  for  the  purpose  of  a  bearing, 
by  an  appropriate  tribunal,  to  adjust  ditt'erences  existing 
in  the  societj'.  The  result  was  an  attempted  meeting  of  the 
congregation  in  June,  1890,  but  the  majority  prevented  the 
meeting,  and  refused  to  permit  it  to  be  held  in  the  church. 
It  was  held  in  front  of  the  church  by  a  minority  which 
elected  certain  officers  who  assumed  to  transact  other  busi- 
ness. Eepresentatives  of  this  minority  brought  an  action 
against  the  majority  to  obtain  possession  of  the  church  prop- 
erty. Kepresentatives  of  four  other  congregations  a}>peared 
and  assumed  to  take  ]>art  in  the  meeting  of  June,  1800,  and 
that  meeting  ]>roceeded  to  depose  certain  trustees  and 
officers  of  the  society  who  had  been  chosen  by  the  majority. 
This  proceeding  by  outsiders  was  irregular,  and  had  no  bind- 
ing effect  on  the  society,  nor  on  the  officers  chosen  by  it. 
Long  V  Uarvey,  177  l*a.  St.  47:^. 

198 


DISSENTERS 

England,  199. 

England.  The  disseiitinc;  cluircli  in  l^ni^land  is  not  a  free 
clinich  in  the  sense  in  wiiicli  we  apply  tlic  term  in  this 
conntiy,  and  it  was  nnuli  less  free  in  Lord  lOldon's  time 
than  now.  Laws  then  existed  upon  the  statute  book  ham- 
pering the  free  exercise  of  religions  belief  and  worship  in 
many  most  opi)ressive  forms,  and  though  I'rotestant  Dis- 
senters were  less  burdened  than  Catholics  and  Jews,  there 
did  not  exist  that  full,  entire,  and  practical  freedom  tor  all 
forms  of  religious  belief  and  i)ractice  wliich  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  our  political  principles.  And  it  is  ([uite  ob- 
vious, from  an  examination  of  the  series  of  cases  growing 
out  of  the  organization  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland, 
found  in  Shaw's  Rei)orts  of  Cases  in  the  Court  of  Sessions, 
tliat  it  was  only  under  the  i)ressure  of  Lord  Eldon's  ruling, 
established  in  the  House  of  Lords,  to  which  final  appeal  lay 
in  such  cases,  that  the  doctrine  was  established  in  the 
Court  of  Sessions  after  no  little  struggle  and  jesistance. 
AVatson  v  Jones,  i:{  Wall.  ( l.  S.)  (170. 

In  1765  the  Protestant  dissenters  in  Crcat  Biitain  were 
distinguished  by  the  sevei-al  deiiominalions  of  i'rcsbytcrians. 
Independents,  and  Baptists.  Waller  v  Childs,  2  And»l. 
(Eng.)  524. 


I'J'J 


DISTURBING  RELIGIOUS  MEETING 

Assenihly,  wliul  con.slitutc.s,  200. 

Camj)  ground,  (runic,  201. 

Christ nia.s  festival,  201. 

Christ  ni:us  treo  celebration,  201. 

Church  trial,  201. 

Common  law,  202. 

Conduct,  202. 

Damages  not  recoverable,  202. 

Decorum  required,  202. 

Definetl,  202. 

Described,  203. 

Dispersion  of  congregation,  203. 

Evidence,  205. 

Extent,  208. 

Extent,  one  person,  208. 

Father  removing  child,  208. 

Fighting,  203. 

Grantor  preventing  occupancy  of  property,  209. 

Intention,  209. 

Interru{)tion  by  expelled  member,  209. 

Intoxicating  liquor,  209. 

Intoxication,  210. 

Meeting  prevented,  211. 

Motive,  211.    __ 

Patrolman's  unreasonable  interference,  211. 

Preaching  by  rival,  211. 

Protest  against  minister,  211. 

Removal  of  distmber,  212. 

Riot,  213. 

Salvation  Army,  213. 

Scope  of  statute,  213. 

Singing,  213. 

Singing  by  choir,  214. 

Statutes,  constitutional,  214. 

Summary  conviction,  214. 

Sunday  School,  214. 

Assembly,  What  Constitutes.  In  its  true  sense  a  religious 
meeting  is  an  assemblage  of  i)eoi)le  met  for  the  purpose  of 
performing  acts  of  adoration  to  the  Supreme  Being,  or  to 

200 


DISTURBING  RELIGIOUS  MEETING  201 

perform  religious  services  in  recognition  of  God  as  an  object 
of  worship,  love,  and  obedience;  it  matters  not  the  faith 
with  respect  to  the  Deity  entertained  by  the  persons  so 
assembled.  The  law  affords  equal  protection  to  tlie  religious 
views,  rites,  and  forms  of  worsliii)  of  all  denominalions,  all 
classes,  and  all  sects,  and  does  not  undertake  to  state  of 
what  they  shall  consist,  or  how  such  services  shall  be  con- 
ducted. Therefore,  as  to  whether  or  not  a  congregation  of 
persons  constitutes  a  religious  meeting  assembled  for  reli- 
gious worship  is  necessarily  largely  a  question  of  fact  to  be 
determined  by  the  jury  from  the  evidence  and  under  proper 
instructions  from  the  court.  Cline  v  Stale,  1^0  Tac.  510 
(Okl.). 

Camp  Ground,  Traffic.  The  defendant  sold  ginger  bread 
on  a  camp  ground  near  a  congregation  engaged  in  religious 
service  in  violation  of  a  statute  which  prohildted  such  a  sah? 
within  one  mile  of  a  worsliiping  assemltly.  A  conviction 
was  sustained  on  ai)i»eal.    West  v  State,  28  Tenn.  6G. 

Christmas  Festival.  Section  485^?  of  the  Tennessee  Code  is 
intended  to  protect  assemblies  met  for  religious  worship. 
A  meeting  held  for  the  enjoyment  of  a  Christmas  festival, 
though  it  was  esjtecially  intended  for  Sunday  school  schol- 
ars and  their  teachers  and  friends,  does  not  change  its  char- 
acter, nor  make  it  an  assembly  for  religious  worship.  Layne 
v  State,  72  Tenn.  11)0. 

Christmas  Tree  Celebration.  The  ("lirisluKis  tree  servitM- 
which  was  intende<l  to  cclcln-ale  the  birth,  lite,  diMili,  and 
resurrection  of  Christ,  and  in  coniincnionilion  of  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Christian  era,  was  iicld  to  be  ;i  religions  serviii', 
and  one  who  disturbed  it  by  iinpTojK'r  condnct  was  held 
liable  to  ])unislinient  therefor.  Stallord  v  State.  l.~|  Ala. 
71;  see  also  Cline  v  State,  i:!0  Tac.  (Okl.i  .".10. 

Church  Trial.  Chnrcli  authorities,  convened  for  the  trial 
of  a  member  of  the  society,  are  entitled  to  the  i»i-ot«'clion  of 
the  law  against  the  dislui-bance  of  religions  meetings,  and 
a  person  who  disturbs  su«li  a  trial  is  liable  to  i»unishment 
therefor.     Hollingsworlh  v  Stale,  ."i  Sneed.   (Tenn.l  r)lS. 


202        Till-:  cix  iL  LAW  AXh  riii;  ciniMii 

Common  Law.  This  is  an  ollcnsc  n\  coiiiiiion  l;i\v,  l'('0|)le  v 
J)(>}f('y,  1*  Wlici'lcr  Cr.  ('.  (X.  Y.)  l.'jr),  and  is  iii(lictable. 
IV'oplc  V  Crowley,  2:\  lluii.  (N.  Y.)  412. 

Conduct.  Ill  Stale  v  Jasper,  15  N.  C.  '.i2:i  it  was  held  that 
laiif^Iiiiij;  and  talking,  and  indecent  actions  and  grimaces, 
(hiring:  the  pcrforinance  of  divine  service,  was  a  misde- 
meanor, and  indictable. 

Damages  Not  Recoverable.  A  ])('isoii  allej;('d  to  be  dis- 
turbed in  a  relij^ious  service  by  noi.ses,  talkiiij;:  or  sinj^inj^ 
or  other  demonstrations,  has  no  cause  of  action  for  dama}j;es 
against  the  i)ersons  causing  the  disturbance.  The  law  pro- 
vides a  summary  remedy  for  disturbing  religious  meetings. 
Owen  V  Henman,  1  Watts  &  S  (Pa.)  548. 

A  private  action  cannot  be  maintained  by  an  attendant 
upon  divine  worshij).  He  does  not  receive  special  or  par- 
ticular damage.  If  one  can,  every  one  may  maintain  a  suit. 
First  Bai)tist  Church  of  Schenectady  v  The  Utica  &  Sche- 
nectady Kailroad  Company,  G  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  313.  Citing 
Owen  V  Henman,  1  Watts.  &  S.  (Pa.)  548. 

Decorum  Required.  "It  must  be  understood  that  people 
who  go  into  a  church,  whether  for  the  purpose  of  attending 
divine  service,  or  of  being  present  at  a  vestry,  must  keep 
themselves  under  restraint,  and  not  depart  from  that  de- 
corum which  should  always  be  preserved  within  conse- 
crated Avails."  Provocation  is  no  defense  to  a  charge  of  dis- 
turbing a  meeting.  North  v  Dickson,  1  Hagg.  Eccles.  Rep. 
(Eng.)  310. 

Defined.  To  constitute  the  offense  there  must  be  a  congre- 
gation assembled  for  religious  worship,  and  that  congre- 
gation, so  assembled,  must  be  disturbed,  that  is,  agitated, 
aroused  from  a  state  of  repose,  molested,  interrupted,  hin- 
dered, perj)lexed,  disquieted,  or  turned  aside  or  diverted 
from  the  object  for  which  they  are  assembled;  and  the  act 
which  causes  the  disturbance  must  be  willfully  done.  Rich- 
ardson V  State,  5  Texas  Ct.  of  App.  470. 

To  constitute  a  disturbance  there  must  be  not  only  an 
actual   interruption   or   disturbance   of   an   assemblage   of 


DiSTi'RUiNd  Ki:ij(ii<M's  mi:i:tix(:         lmci 

people  met  for  religious  worship,  by  noise,  profane  dis- 
course, rude  or  indecent  behavior,  or  by  some  other  act  or 
acts  of  like  character,  at  or  near  the  j)hice  of  worship,  but 
such  interruption  or  disturbance  must  be  willfully  made  by 
the  person  or  persons  accused.  Tlie  intent  is  of  the  very 
essence  of  the  otfense,  and  to  be  willful,  it  iiiiist  be  somelhing 
more  than  mischievous,  it  iinist  he  in  ils  character  virions 
and  immoral.    Brown  v  State,  4()  Ala.  175. 

The  substance  of  the  oilence  consists  in  the  indulgence 
of  improper  conduct,  and  attracting  the  attention  of  any 
part  of  the  assendily  thereby;  and  mIumi  these  facts  concur 
the  offense  is  complete,  llolt  v  State.  1  Baxter,  (Tenn.l 
192. 

Described.  It  is  an  offense  which  tends  to  subvert  those 
principles  of  morality  which  are  the  fonndation  of  all  good 
government,  of  all  social  order,  and  of  all  conlidences  be- 
tween man  and  man;  for  the  strongest  sanction  of  those 
l)rincii)les  has,  in  all  ages  and  conntries,  :ind  under  all  forms 
of  government  and  of  religions  woiship.  been  l<»nnd  in  reli- 
gious faitli;  in  that  relation  which  subsists  between  man 
and  his  ^Maker,  the  duties  «»f  which  relation  are  in  a  par- 
ticular manner  the  subject  of  all  religious  instruction. 
TJ.  S.  V  Lee,  4  Cranch  (  V.  S. )  44(). 

Dispersion  of  Congregation.  After  the  benediciion  and 
before  the  people  had  left  the  house,  the  defendant  assjtulted 
the  minister  and  used  towai'd  him  rude  and  insulting  lan- 
guage. It  was  held  that  it  was  for  the  jury  to  <letermine  as 
a  mixed  question  of  law  and  fad,  wlietliei-  the  congregati<Mi 
should  be  deemed  dispersed  ;ii  iIh  lime  of  the  occui-rence. 
State  V  Snyder.  14  hid.  4L'!t. 

After  the  church  was  dismissed.  ;ind  the  i)aslor  and  part 
of  the  congregation  on  their  way  home,  the  delVndant,  with 
others,  engaged  in  a  broil,  and  defendant,  by  cnrsing  and 
sweaiiug,  disturbed  tho.se  then  on  the  gronnd  ;  defendant 
behaved  in  an  or<lerly  nmnner  so  lung  as  the  jtastor  was 
]>resent  on  the  gronnd.  The  delendanl's  coiidnct  was  held 
to  constitute  a  dislnrliance  of  worship,  ilie  conrt   nhsrrving 


*J()I  TMK  ('l\II.   I. AW   AM)  TIIK  CHURCH 

lli:it  (lie  iHirpnsc,  spirit,  ;iii(1  let  In-  ol  (lie  law  are  to  i»r()tect 
llio  rolif^ious  asscniMy  from  (listui-haiice  before  and  after 
services,  as  well  as  during  tlie  actual  service,  and  so  long  as 
any  portion  of  the  congregation  remains  upon  the  ground. 
Dawson  v  State,  7  Tex.  Ct.  of  Aj.p.  59. 

To  constitute  an  interruption  or  disturbance  of  an  assem- 
blage of  i)eople  met  for  religious  worship,  it  is  not  necessary 
that  the  interrui)tion  or  disturbance  should  be  made  during 
the  progress  of  the  religious  services;  if  made  after  the  con- 
clusion of  the  services  and  the  dismissal  of  the  congrega- 
tion, but  while  a  portion  of  the  people  still  remain  in  the 
house,  and  before  a  reasonable  time  has  elaj^sed  for  their 
dispersion,  the  offense  is  complete.  Kinney  v  State,  38  Ala. 
224. 

An  offense  is  established  where  it  appears  that  the  disturb- 
ance occurred  even  after  the  services  were  closed,  and  while 
the  congregation  were  passing  out  of  the  house.  Love  v 
State,  35  Tex.  Cr.  Re.  27. 

Where  a  congregation  assembled  for  divine  worship  had, 
after  the  morning  service  adjourned  for  dinner  to  be  served 
on  the  church  grounds,  with  the  intention  of  returning  after 
the  meal  to  the  church  house  for  an  afternoon  service,  the 
congregation  had  not,  in  contemplation  of  the  statute,  dis- 
persed while  partaking  of  their  dinner,  but  were  still  as- 
sembled for  the  purpose  of  divine  worship.  A  person  who 
discharged  a  pistol  in  or  near  the  place  where  the  congre- 
gation was  assembled  for  dinner  was  held  properly  convicte<l 
under  the  statute  against  disturbing  religious  meeting. 
Folds  V  State,  123  Ga.  167. 

The  congregation,  which  had  been  holding  religious  serv- 
ices, in  the  forenoon,  took  a  recess  until  the  afternoon  serv- 
ice, and  during  this  interval  partook  of  a  basket  dinner  just 
outside  the  church  building.  While  the  congregation  was 
thus  engaged,  the  defendant  used  language  calculated  to  dis- 
turb the  worshipers.  He  w^as  held  liable  under  the  Ala- 
bama Statute,  which  the  court  said  was  not  limited  to  dis- 
turbances  during   the   actual   progress   of   religious   serv- 


DISTURBING  RKLIOIOUS  MEETING  205 

ices,  but.  Ihe  coiigrcj^jilioii  \v;i.s  ('iilillcd  to  he  pi-oleetCMl 
against  disturbance  during  tlie  intennission.  Ellis  v  State, 
65  So.  (Ala.)  412,  10  Ala.  App.  252. 

Evidence.  Talkinj;  and  heating  on  a  tin  can  constitutes  a 
disturbance  nnder  the  Texas  statute.  Cantrell  v  State,  29 
S.  W.  (Tex.)  42. 

A  canij)  meeting  was  disturbed  at  night.  A  conviction  was 
sustained  on  cn  idcncc  that  the  dclVndant  was  arrested  at 
two  o'clock  in  the  morning,  ha\  ing  in  his  i)()ssession  a  jtistol, 
and  that  he  was  in  conijjany  with  one  of  tlie  jtarties  causing 
the  disturbance;  no  explanation  being  given  oi"  his  being  out 
at  that  hour  in  such  coni])any,  and  there  were  otiier  circum- 
stances indicating  his  participation  in  the  disturbance.    Ball 

V  State,  07  Miss.  358. 

To  constitute  the  statutory  otl'ense  of  (iisturl)ing  religious 
worshij),  the  act  or  discourse  chai-ged  must  have  been  inten- 
tional, and  its  natural  tendency  must  have  been  to  disturb 
the  assenddage,  to  derange  its  (piiet  and  order.  It  is  not 
necessary  that  the  assemblage  shoidd  have  been  actually 
engaged  in  worship  at  the  moment  of  the  discourse,  or  of 
the  condiict  complained  of.  The  statute  applies  to  assem- 
blages when  in  the  act  of  gathering  t«»getlier  and  until  there 
has  been  a  dispeision  of  the  jx'rsons  met  ioi-  woi-ship  and 
they  cease  to  be  an  assemblage  or  congregation.  Leave  to 
speak  given  a  member  of  Ihe  assemblage  and  the  religious 
organization  by  ihe  conductor  of  the  services  cannot  justify 
or  excuse  a  vioh'iit.  passionat(>.  and  insulting  discour.se 
and  deliberately  nmde,  ami  whi<h  by  its  vioh'nce  olVends 
the  order  and  decorum  essential  to  Clirisiian  worship;  nor 
is  it  any  excuse  or  justilication  that  the  delcndant  wliile 
making  such  discourse  was  not  lalled  to  ordei-.     Lancaster 

V  State,  53  Ala.  398. 

A  charge  of  loud  and  vocifei-ons  talking  and  (|uarreling  in 
a  religious  meeting  was  ludd  sullicient  to  sustain  an  indict- 
ment under  the  Texas  statute.  Ilnsh  v  State,  .">  Tex.  Ct. 
Ai)p.  (14. 

The  ci'acking  ami  eating  of  nnis  during  religious  servi<-es 


•j(m;        t\\\:  <'I\il  law  and  tiii;  ciiriicii 

:iii(l   tlici-chy  (lisiiirltiii^;  iiiciiihci-s  of  llic  coiiji.rj'^Ml ion,  may 
(•(tiislihilc  ;i  (lisMirlciiHc  oC  I'cli^ioiis  woi-sliip.     Hunt  v  State, 

:\  Tex.  CI.  A|»p.  in;. 

TIk!  (letViise  showed  tliat  the  persons  cliarj^ed  with  mak- 
iiifif  the  disturbance  were  members  of  the  conf^regation  a»- 
senibU'd  for  religious  worsliij*.  That  during  the  service 
ai)i)elhnits  were  guilty  of  repeated  acts  of  inishehavior,  and 
that  ill  the  closing  prayer,  after  the  conclusion  of  tlie  ser- 
mon, o!ie  of  them  groaned  aloud,  which  caused  the  minister 
to  be  disturbed,  according  to  his  testimony.  It  further 
appeared,  aud  presumably  from  evidence,  that  during  prayer 
ai)pellants  were  laughing  and  talking  together  to  such  an 
extent  as  to  distract  the  attention  of  persons  in  the  con- 
gregation, and  cause  them  to  turn  their  thoughts  from  wor- 
ship to  ascertain  the  cause  of  the  disturbance.  A  conviction 
was  sustained  on  appeal.  Friedlander  v  State,  7  Tex.  Ct. 
App.  204. 

"If  the  persons  without  the  house  had  separated  them- 
selves from  those  within,  who  were  engaged  in  religious 
worship,  and  no  longer  participated  in  the  purposes  for 
which  the  congregation  had  met,  but  had  wholly  discon- 
nected themselves  from  the  assemblage,  with  no  intention 
of  again  participating  in  the  purposes  of  the  meeting  and 
were  engaged  in  the  discussion  of  other  nuitters,''  then 
the  disturbance  of  one  or  more  of  such  persons  would  not 
come  within  the  prohibition  of  the  Alabama  statute.  Adair 
V  State,  i:U  Ala.  18:^ 

The  conduct  alleged  as  a  disturbance  must  in  fact  have 
disturbed  the  meeting,  and  conduct  of  a  person,  however 
reprehensible  and  indecent,  which  does  not  in  fact  disturb 
the  assembly  of  people  met  for  religious  worship,  and  though 
committed  at  or  near  the  place  of  worship,  is  insufficient  to 
authorize  a  conviction  under  the  statute.  Cox  v  State,  13G 
Ala.  94. 

In  a  trial  for  disturbing  religious  worship  evidence  that 
defendant,  together  with  others,  disturbed  the  congregation 
by  talking  and  laughing  is  admissible  as  when  he  and  the 


insTrRHiNc  Ki:iJ(ii()i's  mi:i:tix(;         l'ot 

otliei'«  coiivei'sed  ainoiiji;  tlieinschcs ;  tlic  ;ni  ol'  uuc  was  the 
act  of  all. 

On  a  prosecution  for  disturl)iii«f  relij;i()us  worsliip,  evi- 
dence that,  after  the  preaching  was  over,  defentlant  in 
answer  to  a  remark  that  the  preacher  would  bust  him,  stated 
tliat  if  the  preacher  fooled  with  him  he  would  shoot  him,  is 
admissible  to  show  that  his  talking-  during  the  preaching 
was  maliciously  done. 

Where  defendant  knows  that  the  remark  addressed  to  him 
referred  to  a  probable  prosecution  for  disturbing  the  preach- 
ing his  answer  is  admissible  as  a  tacit  admission  that  he 
was  coiine<-ted  with  the  disturbance. 

On  a  prosecution  for  disturbing  jtublic  worship,  testimony 
that  the  preacher  ceased  preaching  and  si)oke  to  the  defend- 
ant and  the  others  jtarticipating  in  the  disturbance  about 
their  talking,  is  not  admissible  as  hearsay.  McAdoo  v  State 
35  S.  W.  (Tex.  Ct.  of  Crim.  App.)  9G6. 

The  disturbance  consisted  of  various  acts  by  the  defendant 
intended  to  exhibit  not  only  his  dissent  from  the  faith  and 
practices  of  those  conducting  the  meeting,  but  also  to  show 
his  contem]>t  therefor.  This  was  done  by  deriding  and  mak- 
ing sport  of  the  same,  stating  to  a  person  engaged  in  ]»rayer 
"to  pray  louder;  i)eradventure  your  God  is  asleep,  or  has 
gone  on  a  journey."  Chishcdm  v  State,  I'l  S.  >\'.  (i|(;  iTcx. 
Crim.  App.) 

The  African  Congregalioiial  Clinrcli  in  I'mis,  'i'e.\;is.  iM'iiii,^ 
the  owner  of  th(>  church  edifice,  permitted  tlie  use  of  it  by 
Methodist  and  IJaptist  congregiitions  in  tlie  same  town  on 
days  agreed  upon.  <)ne  Smidiiy,  when  tlic  llaptists  were 
occupying  the  church,  the  sexton  of  ilic  Alri(;in  Snrjtiy 
entered  tJie  cliurch  while  service  was  in  |irogress,  and  ilie 
minister  was  ]>reaching,  and  called  out  a  mend)er  of  the 
society,  and  the  two  outside  the  door  had  an  altercation 
w^hich  disturbed  membei-s  of  the  congregation,  and  a  min- 
ister sitting  in  the  jnilpit  went  out  to  ascertain  the  cause 
of  tlie  disturbance.  The  sexton  was  arrested  for  disturbing 
a   meeting,   and   claimed    in    defense    thai    on    that    d;iy    the 


LM)S  'IMIi:  ('I\ll.  LAW    AM)  Till:  ciukcii 

Mctliodisis  were  ciiMtlcil  to  llic  use  of  llir  cliiirrii.  His  coii- 
(Incl  \\;is  li<'l<l  In  he  :i  (list  nilciiicc  of  tlic  iiiccl  iii;^  aii<l  lie  w;is 
convicted.     Dorn  v  State,  4  Tex.  A]>|».  OT. 

A  prima  facie  case  was  deemed  made  where  it  appeared 
that  two  witnesses  testilied  that  the  defeiidaiit  eiltertMl  the 
cluii'ch  with  a  ]ar<:;e  stick,  remaiiiiiij;'  within  hut  a  shoi-t 
time,  and  al'teiward  was  heai-d  l>_v  them  talkinj^  out  c)f  dooi-s. 
occasionally  usin^  profane  lanj^naj;e  in  tlie  tone  of  xoice 
loud  enough  t<»  he  heard  ovei-  the  cliurch,  and  that  th<*y 
were  disturbed,  Init  <]i(l  not  notice  that  it  j)articularly  dis- 
turbed the  remainder  of  the  congregation.  McElroy  v  State, 
2.")  Tex.  507. 

Extent.  The  cou'^regation  need  not  all  be  disturbed.  A 
noise  audible  in  all  parts  of  tlie  house,  and  which  disturbs 
a  considei-able  ]>art  of  the  congregation,  constitutes  a  dis- 
turbance within  the  statute.  Clark  v  State,  78  S.  W.  (Tex.) 
1078. 

Extent,  One  Person.  The  disturbance  of  one  person  only 
while  a  member  of  a  congregation  engaged  in  religious  wor- 
ship is  a  violation  of  the  statute.  State  v  Wriglit,  41  Avk. 
410,  Walker  v  State,  140  S.  W.  802. 

It  is  a  violation  of  the  Texas  statute  against  the  disturb- 
ance of  religious  worship  if  but  one  worshiper  be  disturbed 
by  the  loud  talking  or  abusive  language,  and  it  is  not  error 
for  the  court  to  so  instruct  the  jury.  McVea  v  State,  35  Tex. 
Crim.  1. 

Every  individual  worsliijier  in  the  congregation,  as  well 
as  the  entire  congregation,  is  protected  b}'  the  statute  from 
rude  and  profane  disturbance  during  the  solemn  moments 
of  public  worshi]).  It  was  therefore  held  that  ]>rofane  lan- 
guage addressed  to-  one  person  in  the  congregation  was  suffi- 
cient to  constitute  the  offense.  Cockrehara  v  State,  7  Hump. 
(Tenn.i  11. 

Father  Removing  Child.  A  father  has  no  right  to  enter  a 
church,  and  during  divine  service  take  away  by  force  and 
violence  his  minor  child,  in  such  manner  as  to  disturb  the 
congregation.    In  this  case  the  child  was  a  daughter  about 


DiSTrKiMxc  Ki:jj(Jiors  mi:i:tin(;         2o:» 

fifteen  years  of  a^v,  and  was  participating;  in  (he  service 
when  lier  father  entered  and  took  her  h_v  the  arm  and  tohl 
her  to  come  home.  Comnionwealtli  v  Si^nian.  '2  (Mark  (  Pa.  i 
30. 

Fighting.  A  conviction  was  deemed  made  ont  for  distnrb- 
ing  religious  worshij)  on  j»roof  that  the  defendant  willfully 
and  intentionally  en«;a«j:,('d  in  a  light,  without  lawful  excuse, 
or  necessity,  at  or  near  a  place  at  which  jieople  were  en- 
gaged in  worshij),  even  though  he  did  not  hrin^  mi  the 
difficult}',  nor  strike  tlie  first  blow,  (louldin^  v  State,  si! 
Ala.  48. 

The  defendant  was  engaged  in  a  light  with  another  i)er- 
son,  some  thirty-tive  yards  from  the  ]>lace  where  the  reli- 
gious service  was  being  held.  Somebody  notifie<l  the  congre- 
gation that  there  was  a  fight.  It  was  held  that  the  deleiid- 
ant's  act  of  fighting  did  not  disturb  the  congregation,  which 
could  not  have  known  of  the  fight  except  for  the  notice  by  a 
third  person.    State  v  Kir]»y,  108  N.  C.  77'2. 

Grantor  Preventing  Occupancy  of  Property.  A  ])erson  wlio 
held  ti  deed  of  the  land  on  which  a  meeting  house  had  l)een 
erected,  claiming  title  thereto,  locked  the  dooi-  and  l»re- 
vented  services  fi-om  being  held.  This  was  not  a  <listnrbance 
of  religious  worshij*.     Davis  v  Stale,  1(1  South.   (Miss.)  :'.TT. 

Intention.  Q'he  defendant  cannot  prove  a  secret  intention 
not  to  distul-1)  the  assenddage,  although  he  may  rebut  the 
presum])tion  of  guilty  intent  by  proof  of  a  lawful  excuse. 
Williams  v  State,  8: 1  Ala.  (is. 

Interruption  by  Expelled  Member.  It  was  held  lo  be  a  dis- 
turbance for  an  expelled  member  to  interrupt  the  .service  by 
calling  attention  to  his  recent  expnision  and  ]>rotesling 
against  it,  and  jtersisting  in  this  interrni»t ion  against  the 
remonstrance  of  the  minister  and  others.  State  v  Kam.say, 
78  N.  C.  448. 

Intoxicating  Liquor.    In  r>urden  v  State,  8  (ia.  App.  1 18.  it 
was  held  that  jiersons  wli(»  go  to  chnrches  must    not   carry 
liquor  or  have  li<pn)r  either  on  their  insides  or  (»n  their  out 
sides. 


L'KI  T\\\:  CINIL    LAW   ANh  'I'lli:  ('111   ICdl 

'i'lic  (!«'or;;i;i  INicil  ('ode,  scdicii  |:'.S,  f<»rl)i(ls  ;iiiy  ixTsfHi 
from  ciirrviiiii  to  ;i  clinrcli,  or  oilier  ])l;ir«'  where  llie  people 
li;i\e  ;isseiiil)l('(l  lor  divine  \vorslii|i.  iiiiy  litjiioi-  or  iiitoxiejil- 
iii«;-  (IriiiU.  I'ul  l>y  seclion  411,  it  is  not  niilawfiil  to  use  iii- 
loxi(:iliii^  liipioi's  ;it  such  phu-es  in  ense  of  aeci<lent  or  niis- 
lorluiie,  nor  ai-e  pracUciiin  ]»]iysi(iaiis  jjroliihited  from 
caii-yinji  and  nsiiij;  such  licpioi'  as  they  niii^ht  deem  necessary 
In  Iheir  rej;nlai'  jiiaclice.  The  defendant  atlended  a  church 
serxice  wilh  his  wife,  and  left  his  Itu^iuy  helweeii  one  Inm- 
di-ed  and  Iwo  lunidi-ed  yai<ls  fi-om  the  <-hnrch,  and  left  in 
Ihe  bu^uy  some  whisky  in  a  bottle,  which  he  said  he  cari-ied 
on  the  advice  of  a  |»liysi(i;Ln  (»n  account  of  the  illness  of  liis 
wife  so  as  to  have  the  nie»licine  ready  in  case  of  a  sudden 
attack.  The  court  overruled  the  defense,  saying  among 
other  things  that  the  prohibition  contained  in  the  statute 
was  inqterative,  and  forbids  its  introduction  not  only  into 
a  religious  sen-ice,  but  also  to  a  place  in  such  immediate 
proximity  to  tJie  church  building  as  to  make  it  readily 
accessible  to  those  who  may  desire  to  use  it.  Bice  v  State, 
109  Ga.  117. 

The  Pennsylvania  act  of  1822,  forbidding  the  sale  of  any 
kind  of  articles  of  traffic,  sj)irituous  liquors,  wine,  ]>orter, 
beer,  or  any  fermented,  mixed  or  strong  drink,  within  three 
miles  of  any  place  of  religious  worship  during  meetings  for 
that  imr])ose,  was  held  to  a])ply  to  the  sale  of  such  articles 
as  would  have  a  tendency  to  produce  intoxication  and  con- 
sequent disturbance;  the  sale  of  articles  of  food  that  could 
have  no  tendency  to  intoxicate  is  not  within  the  prohibition. 
Fetter  v  Wilt,  4(1  Pa.  St.  457. 

Intoxication.  Defendant,  while  under  the  influence  of 
liquor,  went  into  a  church  after  the  services  had  begiui, 
talked  loud  enough  to  attract  attention,  used  profane  lan- 
guage, and  said  he  could  jtray  as  well  as  the  preacher,  and 
would  do  it.  His  conviction  was  sustained,  the  court  on 
appeal  holding  that  the  trial  ctmrt  properly  refused  a  re- 
quest to  charge  that  the  jury  must  find  defendant  not  guilty 
"if  thev  believe  from  the  evidence  that  what  he  said  and  did 


DISTURBING  KELIGIOUS  MICETING  211 

was  said  and  done  la-edh'ssly  or  recklessly,  that  is,  care- 
lessly, without  thinking  of  the  probable  consequence." 
Johnson  v  State,  1)2  Ala.  82. 

Meeting  Prevented.  A  person  who  took  ijossession  of  the 
doorstej)  of  a  church  and  by  threats  and  violence  prevented 
the  congregation  from  holding  a  service  as  intended,  in  Con- 
sequence of  which  the}'  dis]»ersed  without  entering  the  buihl- 
iug  and  engaging  in  worshi]),  was  held  guilty  of  disturbing 
a  religious  meeting  under  the  Georgia  statute.  Tanner  v 
State,  12G  Ga.  77. 

Persons  entered  the  cliurch,  locked  ilic  door,  and  pre- 
vented worshi*]»ers  from  assembling.  I'reventing  a  meeting 
from  assembling  is  not  a  disturbance  within  the  meaning 
of  the  Tennsylvania  statute.  There  could  be  no  disturbance 
unless  the  worshii>ers  had  assembled.  (Commonwealth  v 
Underkotfer,  11  Fa.  Co.  Ct.  58!). 

Motive.  To  constitute  the  statutory  oll'ense  of  disturbing 
religious  worshij)  the  act  must  be  willfully  or  intentionally 
done;  it  is  not  sufiicient  that  it  was  done  recklessly  or  care- 
lessly.    Harrison  v  State,  'M  Ala.  i  N.  S.  i   ]~)i. 

Patrolman's  Unreasonable  Interference.  An  tmlawful  or 
unreasonable  interference  by  a  jtatrol  in  the  service  of  a 
religious  meeting  constitutes  a  disturbance  thereof.  Bell  v 
Graham,  1  Xott  ^K:  Mc(\  (  S.  (\|   1(;8. 

Preaching  by  Rival.  A  i)reacher  who  occupied  tlu'  juilpit 
and  i>reached  to  the  congregation,  instead  of  pi'iniitting  a 
rival  to  preach  the  sermon,  was  held  not  guilty  <)f  disturbing 
the  meeting.  The  clmrch  was  <]ivided  into  two  factions, 
each  of  which  claimed  the  right  l«»  coihIuc  t  the  service.  The 
preacher  who  first  obtained  possession  of  the  pulpit  and 
preached  the  sermon  di<l  not  thereby  commit  any  ollense. 
Divine  worship  was  not  prevented,  but  was  actually  carried 
on.     AVoodall  v  Slate.   I  <;a.  App.  7S:',. 

Protest  against  Minister.  Tlie  dclcndauts  were  hrhl  indict- 
able for  attending  a  religi(tus  meeting  for  tlie  puriKt.se  of 
])rotesting  against  the  preaching  (»!'  a  certain  minister  \\hosp 
anthoritv  to  act   they  (lisp\ited.     In  lon.setptcnce  of  this  pro- 


ni'j        r\\\:  ('i\  iL  LAW  AM*  Tin;  (III  i;(H 

Icsl  llicrc  Wiis  ;i  disl  mhiiiicc  <»r  llic  meet  iii;^,  wiid  the  iiiiii- 
islei-  was  forced  lo  \vitlidi-;iw  lioiii  the  clmi-cli.  ('omraon- 
we.illli  V  Dupiiy,  llii-ililly  X.  P.   (Ta.)  44. 

Removal  of  Disturber.  A  per.son  distnrl)i!if;  a  icli^fHCus 
meeting  and  iiiteii'ni»l  iii^"  its  ordei-  and  decornm.  nia.y  be 
renM»ve(l  tlierelroni  by  flie  application  of  force  sufficient  for 
that  ]»nr]»ose.  The  dist nib;ince  need  not  be  willful.  Where 
in  a  Roman  Catholic  meeting  a  jtei-son  i-ose  in  his  ])lace  and 
demauiled  of  the  piiest  an  exjilanat  ion  of  a  part  of  his  ser- 
mon, ami  on  bein<;-  i-ebuked  and  oT-dei-e<l  to  leave  the  room 
refused,  it  \\;is  held  that  the  i)riest,  as  i)residin<i;  officer  of 
the  meelini;-,  had  authority  to  i-emove  the  disturber  liy  the 
ai>plication  of  needed  force,  au<l  for  that  purjtose  might  call 
to  his  aid  <»lhei'  nuMnbers  of  the  cougregatiou,  and  that  a 
]>riest,  who  had  attempted  to  remove  a  person  so  disturbing 
the  meeting,  was  not  liable  to  au  action  for  assault.  Wall 
vLee,  34N.  Y.  141. 

Vestrymen  have  authority  to  i)reserve  order  at  public 
services,  and  to  remove,  or  cause  the  removal  of  a  person 
disturbing  such  services.  Beckett  v  Lawrence.  7  Abb.  l*r. 
N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  403. 

Every  congregation  of  worshiping  Christians  must  neces- 
sarily have  authority  to  preserve  order  and  decorum  during 
the  time  of  religious  worshij).  Tf  any  man  were  to  force 
himself  into  the  church  during  divine  service,  and  by  noise 
and  violence  disturb  the  congregation,  the  officers  of  the 
church  might  request  him  to  be  quiet,  or  to  go  out,  and  if 
he  would  not.  to  i)ut  him  out  by  force,  taking  care  to  do  him 
as  little  injury  as  possible.  If  he  should  commit  acts  of 
violence,  and  a  bi-each  of  the  ])eace,  the  officers  of  the  church 
or  members,  or  both,  might  resort  to  any  means  of  defense 
w^hich  they  might  reasonably  deem  necessary  to  defeat  the 
assailant's  ])ur])oses  and  rid  the  house  of  such  nuisance.  In 
this  case  it  was  held  that  a  father  had  no  right  to  enter  a 
church,  and  during  divine  service  take  away  by  force  and 
violence  his  minor  child,  in  such  manner  and  under  such  cir- 
cumstances as  to  disturb  the  congregation.     The  members 


DISTURBING   Ki:iJ(il(>rs  MKKTING  2i:! 

of  Uie  euiij^ix'^Jitioii  have  llicir  rights;  llic  liouse  is  theirs, 
and  is  (kMliralcd  to  the  worship  of  Almighty  God.  Com- 
monwealth V  Sicilian,  -5  (,'hirli  ( I'a.i  .".(;.  See  note  on  Father 
Kemovinj;-  Chihl. 

Riot.  In  State  v  -Jones,  77  S.  C.  iiS."),  it  was  lield  that 
en<j;agin<;  in  a  riot  fortj'  feet  from  a  conj;regation  in  reli- 
gious worship  was  so  certain  to  disturb  the  congregation 
as  that  it  must  be  held  to  have  been  within  the  contempla- 
tion and  intention  of  all  particii)ants. 

Salvation  Army.  One  who  enters  a  religious  service  con- 
ducted by  the  Salvation  Army  and,  keejjing  his  hat  on  and  a 
cigar  in  his  mouth,  i>ersists  in  conducting  himself  in  an 
offensive  manner,  and  .so  diverts  attention  from  the  services 
then  in  progress,  violates  the  statute  against  the  disturbance 
of  religious  meetings  and  is  liable  to  punishment  therefor. 
Hull  V  State,  120  Ind.  15:>. 

Scope  of  Statute.  The  statute  is  applicable,  not  only  to 
disturbances  ^\llich  are  ma<le  while  the  religious  services 
are  progressing  but  at  a  camp  meeting,  and  after  the  reli- 
gions services  are  closed  for  the  day,  and  the  congregation 
has  retired  to  rest.  In  this  case  the  defendant  was  charged 
with  going  about  on  the  camj)  ground,  among  the  tents, 
blowing  a  hoin  after  the  wor.shipers  had  retired  for  the 
night.  A  conviction  was  .sustained.  Commonwealth  v  Jen- 
nings, ?y  Graft.  (Va.)  (;24. 

Singing.  The  defendant's  alleged  offense  consisted  in  his 
singing  which  was  described  to  be  so  j)eculiar  as  to  excite 
mirth  in  one  ])ortion  of  the  congregation  and  indignation  in 
the  other,  his  voice  being  heard  at  the  end  of  each  verse 
after  all  the  othei'  singers  had  ceased.  To  the  expostulations 
against  his  method  of  singing  he  replied  that  he  would  wor- 
shij)  his  God,  and  that  as  a  part  of  his  worshij)  it  was  his 
duty  to  sing.  Defendant  was  a  <levout  mendxM-  of  the  church 
and  a  man  of  most  exemplary  dej>or(ment.  The  prosecution 
admitted  that  he  did  not  intend  to  disturb  the  meeting.  A 
conviction  was  revci'sed  on  appeal,  tin'  court  observing  that 
the  defendant  might   Ik*  a   proper  subject  for  discijiline  by 


I'll  Till':  ('l\IL  I.AW  AM)  Tin:  CillRril 

his  cliMi'cli,  but  not  toi"  (liscipliiic  l»y  llic  coiii't.  State  v 
Linkhaw,  (19  N.  0.  215. 

Singing  by  Choir.  Siii^in{]f  l>y  a  cliurch  choir  accordiii}^ 
to  the  usual  custom  and  in  a  quiet  and  ordefly  manner, 
tlioujjh  coutrary  to  the  announcement  of  the  pastiti-  of  a 
Methodist  I'rotestant  con<;i'e^ation  tliat  tliere  wouhl  he 
no  sin^iufi;  at  that  service,  did  not  constitute  a  distui-hance 
of  a  reli}:;ious  nieetinj;.  Commonwealth  v  McDole,  2  Pa. 
Dist.  K.  ;{70. 

Statutes,  Constitutional.  A  statute  prohibiting  certain 
kinds  of  business  within  a  specified  distance  from  the  place 
where  religious  services  are  being  held  is  constitutional, 
and  is  in  aid  of  the  provision  of  the  constitution  securing 
liberty  of  religious  worship.    State  v  Gate,  58  N.  H.  240. 

Summary  Conviction.  Under  the  New  York  act  of  ISKl  as 
amended  in  1824  relative  to  the  disturbance  of  religious 
meetings,  it  was  held  that  a  justice  of  the  peace  might  order 
an  oft'ender  into  the  custody  of  a  constable  without  warrant 
and  proceed  to  a  summary  conviction  for  the  ottense,  it  aj)- 
pearing  that  the  oflfense  was  committed  in  the  presence  of 
the  justice  of  the  peace.  Farrell  v  Warren,  3  Wend.  (N.  V. ) 
254. 

Sunday  School.  A  person  who  willfully  disturbs  a  Sun- 
day school  is  indictable  at  common  law,  and  the  North 
Carolina  statutes  are  amply  sutticient  to  cover  such  a  case. 
State  v  Brauuer,  149  N.  C.  559. 

A  Sunday  school,  where  the  Bible  and  the  precepts  of 
religion  are  taught,  is  a  place  of  public  worship  within  the 
statute  prohibiting  the  disturbance  of  religious  meetings. 
Martin  v  State,  6  Baxter  (Tenn.)  234;  see  the  article  on 
Religious  Worship,  sub  title,  Sur.daj'  School. 


DOCTRINE 

Civil  courts  no  jurisdiction,  215. 
How  ascertained,  215. 
Predestination,  215. 

Civil  Courts  No  Jurisdiction.  Wluit  is  tl»tM)loj,Mciilly  tnie  in 
religion  it  is  agiccd  on  ;ill  Ininds  that  llic  coni-ls  ai-c  not 
competent  to  decide;  nor  luive  tlu'y  power  to  (Icicnniiic 
wliat  is  really  and  intrinsically  snhstanlial  and  essential  in 
nnillcrs  of  doctrine.  Attorney-C^Jeneral  ex  rel  Abbott  v 
Dublin,  88  N.  H.  459. 

How  Ascertained.  "Where  a  trust  is  ci-ea<ed  by  de('<l  for 
the  use  of  a  congregation  of  Christians  designating  such 
congregation  by  the  name  of  a  sect  or  denomination,  without 
any  other  sjtecifications  of  the  religious  worshij)  intended, 
the  intent  of  the  donoi-s  or  fonndei's  in  that  res]»ect  may  be 
implied  from  their  cnvn  religions  tenets,  fi'om  the  jtrior  and 
contemporary  usages  and  <locti'ines  of  the  sect  or  deiionnna- 
tion  to  which  such  congregation  belongs.  Tn  ascertaining 
the  early  and  contenii»orary  usage  ami  docti'ines  of  sncii  sect 
resort  may  be  ha<l  to  histoi-y,  and  to  stamlard  woi-ks  of  tlieol- 
ogy  of  an  era  j)i-ior  to  Ihe  existence  of  the  dispute  of  con- 
trovei-sy."     Kniskern  v   liUtlieran   ('hurch,   1    Sandf.  Ch.    (X. 

Y.)  r.v.). 

Predestination.  'IMie  docliines  (»f  abs(»]ute  predestination 
and  of  limited  jn-edest  inal  ion  a  i-e  both  lan;^ht  in  substance 
in  ciiurches  of  good  standing  in  tlie  associat  ions  of  tlie  I'rim- 
itive  Baptist  Church  in  Kentucky,  and  as  there  is  no  una- 
nimity upon  the  subject  in  the  teachings  of  those  I'ccogni/.ed 
as  learned  in  the  docti*iiie  of  the  cinircli,  the  teaching  of 
either  of  these  docti-ines  is  not  a  departure  from  the  faith  as 
understood  in  ISI,"),  at  the  time  church  ju-opei-ty  was  con- 
veved  for  tiie  jMii-poses  of  a  church  of  thai  denomination. 
Bennett  v  jNlorgan,   llL'  Ky.  .MJ. 

215 


D0WIEI8M 

Leadershi[),  (lucstiori  of  succession,  210. 

Religious  belief  iis  excuse  for  |)iirental  neglect,  216. 

Leadership,  Question  of  Succession.  This  question  was  con- 
sidercd  in  Lewis  v  Voliva,  1.")4  III.  Ap]*.  48,  where  it  was 
held  that  the  civil  courts  would  not  decide  the  question  of 
leadership,  but  that  the  question  must  be  left  to  the  church 
to  be  determined  accordinji;  to  its  laws  and  usages,  no  prop- 
erty right  being  involved  in  the  controversy. 

Religious  Belief  as  Excuse  for  Parental  Neglect.  See  State 
V  Chenoweth,  liV.)  Ind.  !)4  for  a  case  where  the  defendant 
charged  with  manslaughter  ou  account  of  the  death  of  his 
infant  child  eight  months  old  excused  his  neglect  to  pronde 
medical  aid  for  the  child  on  the  ground  that  he  believed  in 
divine  healing  without  the  aid  of  medicine,  according  to  the 
views  maintained  by  John  Alexander  Dowie.  The  case  con- 
tains a  review  of  authorities  bearing  on  the  question 
whether  religious  belief  is  a  valid  excuse  under  such  circum- 
stances. The  court  directed  a  verdict  of  acquittal  for  fail- 
ure of  evidence. 


216 


BUNKERS 

Deed,  license,  trust,  217. 

Deed,  License,  Trust.  In  17S7  land  was  coiivcycd  t<>  nine 
persons  as  tnistccs  of  the  local  society  known  as  (Jennan 
Baptists,  conunonly  called  Dnnkers,  for  the  exclusive  u.se 
forever  of  the  German  Baptist  Society.  The  deed  did  not 
express  that  it  was  for  a  chnrch,  and  it  was  held  void  under 
the  34tli  article  of  the  Maryland  Declaration  of  Rights. 

In  1808  the  same  grantor,  for  the  purpose  of  correcting 
defects  in  the  original  deed,  made  a  new  deed  in  which  it 
was  declared  that  the  land  was  intended  as  a  burial  groun<l 
for  members  of  the  German  Bajjtist  Society,  conimonh' 
called  Dnnkers,  and  such  other  ])ers()ns  as  the  trustees  might 
l)erniit  to  be  buried  therein,  and  any  house  of  worship  to 
be  erected  on  the  land  was  to  be  used  by  the  society  and 
others. 

No  house  having  been  built  on  the  lot,  an  agreement  was 
made  by  the  German  Baptist  Society  in  1S4!)  with  the  trus- 
tees of  the  congregation  of  tlie  Discijdes  of  Christ,  by  which 
the  latter  agreed  to  erect  on  the  lot  a  house  of  worship,  to 
surround  the  land  with  a  brick  wall,  and  also  erect  a  vault 
on  the  premises.  Tlie  building  was  to  be  used  exchisively 
by  the  second  society  as  a  place  of  worship,  or  such  .society 
might,  at  its  o])tion,  permit  the  building  to  be  used  by  other 
persons.  The  building  was  erected  and  used.  The  present 
action  was  brought  by  the  trustees  under  the  original  deed 
to  recover  possession  of  the  jiroperty,  on  (hi'  alleged  invalid- 
ity of  the  licen.se  under  which  the  .second  society  procured  its 
right  to  erect  the  house  of  woiship  and  take  possession  of 
the  property.  It  was  held  thai  tlic  license  was  \ali<i,  ami 
that  the   action   to   si't   it   aside   could    not    he   maintained. 

217 


I 


LMS  TIIIO  (M\II.   I.AW  AM)  TIIi:  (MiriU'II 

^Vll;ll('V('I'  I'ciiicdy  tlic  jiraiiloi-s  of  llic  license  iiiiiy  liavo  liad 
by  way  of  foireidiic  of  the  proijcily  iimst  have  \ntv.n  resorted 
to  in  a  court  of  law  aud  uot  in  a  court  of  equity.  Grove  v 
Trustees  of  the  Conj^jregation  of  the  Disciples  of  JesuH 
Christ,  :i;j  Md.  151. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  COUNCIL 

Defined,  219. 

Described,  219. 

Minister,  change  of  religious  tenets,  219. 

Defined.  An  ec-flesiasiicjil  coiiiicil  is  a  judicial  trihiuial 
whose  province  it  is,  uitoii  the  proper  presentation  of 
charges,  to  try  them  on  evidence  admissible  before  such  ii 
tribunal.  They  have  no  power  to  dissolve  a  contract,  or  to 
absolve  either  party  from  its  obli<i;ation.  Sheldon  v  Congre- 
gational Parish,  Easton,  24  Tick.  (Mass.)  L*S1. 

Described.  Au  ecclesiastical  council  is  a  tribunal  well 
known  in  the  history  of  oni-  connnonwcaltli,  and  recognized 
and  regarded  in  judicial  decisions.  It  is  one  frequently 
resorted  to  in  the  settlement  of  clergymen,  in  reconciling 
and  healing  dilt'erences  and  divisions  in  cliurches,  and  iu 
adjusting  and  terminating  controversies  i»et\veen  i>astor.s 
and  their  churches  and  parishes.  IJnt  notwithstanding  the 
frequency  of  their  occurrence,  it  is  not  easy  accurately  to 
define  their  powers  or  to  ascertain  the  precise  force  ami 
eti'ect  of  their  adjudications.  It  is  frcciuently  called  an 
advisory  court.  Its  detennination  oi"  i-esnlt  is  often  called 
advice,  and  is  usually,  il'  not  uniformly,  given  in  the  form 
of  counsel  to  the  i»arties.  And  tht;  benetits  so  often  derived 
from  the  action  of  these  tribunals  de|tend  more  ii]»oii  the 
respectability  of  the  mcMnbers  and  their  collect ivc  and  indi- 
vidual moral  intlncnce  than  upon  any  legal  etVect  which  can 
be  given  to  their  decisions.  Steai-ns  v  Bedford,  L'l  Pick. 
(Mass.)  125;  see  also  Avery  v  Tyringham,  :*>  Mass.  Ke.  1S2 
and  P.uiT  V  First  Parish  in  Sandwich,  !)  Mass.  27(1. 

Minister,  Change  of  Religious  Tenets.  If  alter  a  minister 
is  setlled  lie  ado|'(s  a  new  syslem  of  divinilv,  (lie  parish  re- 

•_M9 


220  TIIIO  (*l\  IL   l-AW   AM>  Till:  ("IIIKOH 

laiiiiu^  (iii'ir  ronucr  religious  hclid',  su  that  llic  iiiinisler 
would  not  have  been  Hettl<'(l  on  liis  present  Hysteni,  the 
parish  lias  good  cause  to  coinitlaiii.  I>y  the  change  in 
the  opinions  of  their  niinisler  tiicy  are  obliged  to  Jicar  doc- 
trines which  they  disai)prove,  and  which  they  do  not  believe. 
This  makes  a  ])roper  case  for  the  advice  of  an  ecclesiastical 
couucil.    Burr  v  First  Parish  in  Sandwich,  9  Mass.  Ke.  2T(>, 


ECCLESIASTICAL  COURTS 

Arbitrary  proceedings,  221. 

Denominational  rules,  222. 

Ecclesiastical  question,  defined,  222. 

England,  description,  222. 

England,  jurisdiction,  223. 

Friends,  223. 

Judges,  should  be  inijjartial,  223. 

Judgment,  efTect,  224. 

Judgment,  how  enforced,  220. 

Judgment,  when  binding  on  civil  courts,  227. 

Judgment,  when  conclusive,  227. 

Jurisdiction,  general  rule,  227. 

Jm'isdiction,  when  exclusive,  227. 

Legislature,  jurisdiction,  228. 

Mandamus,  228. 

Members,  trial,  228. 

Object  and  purpose,  229. 

Pewholder's  right,  229. 

Power  limited,  229. 

Power,  necessity  of  limitation,  229. 

Scotland,  230. 

Secret  investigations,  230. 

State  not  bound  by  decisions,  230. 

Vei-mont,  231. 

Arbitrary  Proceedings.  >\'li('r('  n  incshytery  was  (onsitl- 
ei'iiig  the  appeal  of  a  iniiiish-f  rioin  a  sentence  «»f  sns- 
j)ension  an  atloni]»t  was  made  1<>  exclude  two  nicnibcrs  of 
the  j)resbyteiy  from  a<lin;4  by  adopt inj^  a  rcsultitictn  declar- 
ing that  they  were  iiicapacitalctl  by  reason  of  alliniiy  and 
]tai-tiality,  the  cliartre  of  alliniiy  applying:.  bo\ve\er.  Id  only 
one  of  Ibem,  wliile  both  were  cliar;ied  with  partialily.  Tlu'V 
were  both  iiiclinieil  in  one  i-esolnlion.  wliicli  prevented  either 
from  votiiij;-.  l>y  the  casting:;  vote  of  the  niodei'at<n'  tliey 
were  declared  e.\<lnded.    The  method  of  t'.\cln<ling  these  two 

221 


222  Till':  ("l\  IL   LAW    AM)  'rili:  CIUKCII 

iiiciiiltcis  ul'   the   |ir('sl»_\  Icrv    was  (|c(1;ii(m1    Io   he   wliolly    iiii 
\vjirr;inf;ibl«?  jind  as  vilialiiif^  llic  siihscfiiicnt  procctMliii^s  of 
tlie  iircshylcry  based  on  llic  action  of  llio  inajoi-ity  ohlaincd 
by  this  ill('<2;al  cxclnsion.     Sniitli  v  Nelson,  IS  \'t.  oil. 

Denominational  Rules.  Under  tlie  canon  of  Die  I'l-oleslant 
ICpiscopal  Clinrch  relative  to  the  investif^alion  of  cbai-<;;es 
ajjainst  a  rector,  it  was  held  tbat  no  coniniission  need  be 
issued  by  the  bishoj).  The  Idshop  is  i-e((nired  to  appoint 
tliree  i)ersons  to  examine  the  case  and  make  a  i)resentnient, 
but  the  method  of  malcing  the  a]»i»ointment  was  left  to  his 
discretion.  Tlie  court  on  j)resentment  and  diie  notice,  ba<l 
l)ower  to  take  co<;nizance  of  the  case.  The  ])resentinent 
sliould  not  be  tested  by  the  strict  rules  of  criminal  jdeading. 
The  court,  in  this  instance,  was  not  authorized  by  tlie  stat- 
ute, but  was  the  creature  of  the  law  of  the  church,  and 
must  be  governed  and  judged  by  the  canons  of  the  church. 
Chase  v  Cheney.  58  111.  HO!). 

Ecclesiastical  Question,  Defined.  An  ecclesiastical  matter 
is  one  that  concerns  doctrine,  creed,  or  form  of  worship  of 
the  church,  or  the  adoption  and  enforcement  within  a  reli- 
gious association  of  needful  laws,  rules,  and  regulations  for 
the  government  of  the  member.ship,  and  the  ])Ower  of  exclud- 
ing from  such  associations  those  deemed  unworthy  of  mem- 
bership by  the  legally  constituted  authorities  of  the  church. 
All  of  these  matters  are  within  the  province  of  church 
courts,  and  their  decisions  upon  them  should  be  respected 
by  civil  tribunals.    Clark  v  Bro^^^J,  108  S.  W.  421.  (Tex.) 

England,  Description.  In  lOngland  the  ecclesiastical  law 
and  the  ecclesiastical  courts  are  established  by  legitimate 
authority  and  become  a  part  of  the  law  of  the  land.  By  the 
common  law  the  king  is  the  head  of  the  church,  which  means 
that  all  ecclesiastical  power  and  autliority  is  established  by 
him  and  not  by  a  law.  No  canons  can  be  made  except  by 
his  consent.  Ecclesiastical  courts  and  ecclesiastical  law 
are  adopted  as  part  of  the  common  law.  Their  proceedings 
are  according  to  the  forms  of  the  civil  law,  and  the  king 
nmy  pardon  all  ollenses  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  spir- 


ECCLESIASTICAL  COLKTS  L»J:', 

iliial  couils.  The  courts  of  coniinou  law  have  and  exercise 
a  sui)eriiiteii(leiice  over  tlieir  i»rocee<liiij;s,  and  may  keep 
them  within  their  jurisdiction,  and  control  them  bv  man- 
damus, i)roliibition,  etc.  The  sentences  of  these  courts  are 
there  entitled  to  the  same  consideration  as  the  sentences 
of  any  other  inferior  ti-ihnnal.  Theii-  decisions  are  linaland 
conclusive  on  all  subjects  within  their  jurisdiction,  but  they 
nniy  be  controlled  and  examined  into  by  the  courts  of  law. 
Smith  V  Nelson,  IS  \'t.  niL 

England,  Jurisdiction.  In  lOngbind  such  coiirts  liave  juri.s- 
diclion  of  ollenscs  of  bi-awlinj^,  indejuMidenl  ot'  shitnte  con- 
ferring jurisdiction  on  t('ni|»()ral  coiiits.  Taylor  \  Morlcy, 
1  Curteis   ( lOnj;-. )  :380. 

Friends.  In  llendrickson  v  Shotwell,  1  N.  .1.  Va[.  7u1,  the 
following  observations  are  quoted  from  Barclay's  treati.se 
on  church  government :  "Whether  the  Church  of  Christ  have 
power,  in  any  cases  that  are  nuitters  of  conscience,  to  give 
a  positive  sentence  and  decision  which  may  be  obligatory 
u])on  believers,  I  answer  aflirmatively,  she  hatJi.  All  prin- 
ciples and  articles  of  faith  which  are  held  doctrinal  are, 
in  respect  to  those  that  believe  them,  matters  of  conscience. 
Now,  if  any  one  or  more  so  engaged  with  us  should  arise 
to  teach  any  other  doctrine  or  doctrines  ct)ntrary  to  these 
which  were  the  ground  <tf  onr  being  one,  who  can  deny  but 
the  bod}"  had  ]>ower  in  such  a  case  to  declare  this  is  not 
according  to  the  truth  wc  lUdlcss,  and.  therefore,  we  pro- 
nounce .such  doctrines  to  be  wrong,  with  which  we  cannot 
have  unity,  noi*  yet  any  more  spiritual  fellowslii])  with  tiM)se 
that  hold  them." 

Judges,  Should  Be  Impartial.  Where  in  a  pi-oceeding  iiefore 
a  presbytery  a  minister  remarks  that  some  nuMubers  of  tlu' 
jii-esbytei-y  were  until  to  sit  in  any  couil,  ami  the  ndnister 
was  rebuked  and  sus|»emled  by  i  he  presbytery  by  the  vo(«'s 
of  four  of  the  i»ersons  indinh'd  in  iiis  criticism,  il  was  said 
that  a  sentence  of  suspension  pronounced  under  sucii  cir- 
cumstances was  improper  and  couhl  not  l»e  sustained. 
Smith  V  Nelson,  IS  \'t.  T)!  1. 


224  Till']  ('l\ll,   LAW   AM)  TIIIO  (mvnCU 

Judgment,  Effect.  Tlic  decision  of  an  ('((Icsiasticnl  court 
iij»<)ii  an  ccclcsiaslical  niatlcr  as  l(»  its  «»\vii  jurisdiction  is 
conclusive  ui)ou  (lie  <ivil  (((Ui-ls.  Connill  v  ltd".  Protestant 
Dutch  ('liur<-li,  ni  X.  y.  r>~>],  ciHn^  Cliasc  v  Clieuey,  58  111. 
50!),  where  it  is  said  tiiat  the  civil  c(»nils  will  interfere  with 
ehui'ches  or  reli;;ious  associations  when  tin;  i-ij^iits  of  prop- 
erty or  civil  rijihts  are  involved,  hut  they  will  not  revise 
the  decisions  of  such  associations  ui)on  ecclesiastical  mat- 
ters merely  to  ascertain  tlu'ir  jurisdiction;  see  also  Marie 
M.  E.  Church  of  Chicago  v  Trinity  M.  E.  Church  of  Chicago, 
258  111.  21. 

Wherever  religious  associations  liave  been  organized  in 
society  for  the  expression  and  dissemination  of  religious 
doctrine,  and  have  created  for  their  direction  in  matters  of 
doctrine,  church  government  and  discipline,  tribunals  within 
the  association,  the  final  and  controlling  etfect  of  the  eccle- 
siastical polity  thus  formed  u])on  the  individual  members 
and  congregations  and  ofiicers  Avithin  the  general  association 
will  not  be  questioned  but  will  be  given  efl'ect  in  the  civil 
courts.  And  all  who  unite  themselves  to  such  a  body  do  so 
with  the  imidied  consent  to  sid)mit  to  the  system  of  ecclesias- 
tical control,  and  are  bound  by  it,  and  it  would  be  vaiu  con- 
sent, and  would  lead  to  the  total  subversion  of  such  reli- 
gious bodies,  if  anyone  aggrieved  by  one  of  their  decisions 
should  appeal  to  the  secular  courts,  and  could  thus  have 
that  voluntary  control,  which  they  had  themselves  agreed 
to,  reversed  and  destroyed.  It  is  of  the  essence  of  these  reli- 
gious unions,  and  it  is  their  right  thus  to  establish  tribunals 
for  the  decision  of  questions  arising  among  themselves,  that 
those  decisions  should  be  binding  in  all  cases  of  ecclesias- 
tical cognizance  in  matters  of  doctrine  and  discipline,  and 
this  control  goes  to  the  extent  of  controlling  the  terms  upon 
w^hich  the  pastoral  relation  shall  be  formed,  and  the  salary 
accompanying  it  shall  be  demanded.  First  Presbyterian 
Church  of  Perry  v  Myers,  5  Old.  801). 

The  weight  of  authority  is  to  the  effect  that  if  a  religious 
organization  has,  under  its  form  of  government,  a  tribunal 


ECCLESIASTICAL  COURTS  225 

constituted  willi  jurisdiction  to  (Iccide  dillerences  between 
its  members  as  to  creed,  teaching,  or  doctrine,  tlie  civil 
courts  will  not  undertake  io  review  or  revise  the  juil<;inejit 
of  the  church  tribunal  in  releience  to  such  matters.  If  the 
matter  relates  to  creed,  doctrine,  or  leaching,  the  judgment 
of  the  constituted  clnirch  tribunal  is  absolutely  conclusive 
upon  the  civil  courts,  whether  in  the  oi»inion  of  the  judges 
of  such  courts  the  decision  appears  to  be  right  or  wrong. 
Where  a  right  ol  pro|»ei-t_v  turns  upon  such  a  <lecision  the 
civil  courts  will  allow  the  property  to  go  in  that  direction  in 
which  the  decision  of  the  church  tribunal  carries  it. 

The  constituted  tribunal  of  the  religious  oi-ganization  has 
jurisdiction  to  determine  all  ecclesiastical  questions  which 
are  submitted  to  it  under  the  law  and  usages  of  the  society. 
It  has  also  the  authority  to  determine  foi*  itself  whether  it 
has  jurisdiction  in  a  given  case.  The  highest  church  c(»urt 
of  a  religious  society  is  like  the  highest  civil  court.  It  has 
submitted  to  it  not  only  questions  growing  out  of  contro- 
versies, but  it  has  of  necessity,  imjiosed  u|>on  it  the  duty 
and  responsibility  of  determining  what  are  within  the  limits 
of  its  jurisdiction.  The  judgment  of  the  eci  lesiast ical  tri- 
bunal is  final  and  conclusive  it  within  its  jurisdiction;  in 
other  cases  the  civil  courts  will  inquire  into  the  scope,  chai- 
acter,  an<l  effect  of  the  powers  vested  in  the  church  ti-ibnnal. 
Mack  V  Kime,  12!)  Ca.  1. 

There  cannot,  in  this  count ly.  be  attributed  to  the  deci 
sions  of  a  syno<l  or  the  decisions  of  any  e<-clesiastical  judi 
catory  either  infallibility  or  freedom  from  eiror,  nor  (an 
they  claim  rightfully  uidimited  obediem-e;  and  when  il  is 
attempted  to  give  to  their  adjudications  the  same  elTect  as 
is  given  to  the  sentence  of  ecclesiastical  couits  in  ICngland. 
or  the  superior  courts  of  i-onmion  law.  the  attempt  must  i»e 
unavailing. 

The  proceedings  ol  an  ecclcsiasi  i(  al  court  in  Ijiglaiid  and 
Scotland  may  be  in(|uiretl  into  collaterally,  and  when  they 
proceed  illegally,  even  those  who  prononnccti  (heir  decr»'es 
are  not  exemi)t   Ifom  res|»onding  for  any  damages  whit  li  an 


220  Til  10  (MX  II.   LAW   A  N  I »  Till;  ('III   Iv'CII 

iii(li\  i<lii;i  I  iii;iy  snshiiii  in  (•onsciinciicc  ol'  their  illc;4;il  ;icts. 
Jiikcwisc  ill  tliis  coiiiihv  tlic  procccMJi  nj^s  of  :iiiy  self  const  i- 
lutcd  ('((IcsiiislicMl  I  riliniijil,  not  i('co;4;niz(M|  ;is  :i  part  of  our 
jurispriKlcncc,  iiuiv  lie  »'X;iiiiiii(Ml,  (lisicj^jirdcd,  :iimI  (h'clai'cd 
void  w  licncvcr  the  subject  comes  hel'ore  our  courts  of  I;i\v, 
wlu'lliei*  directly  or  coll;iter;illy.  The  jtroccediii^is  of  iIk; 
synod,  or  of  any  other  ecclesiastical  triliunal  in  this  conn- 
try  as  a  coni't  of  tlie  last  i-esoj-t,  are  not  to  he  held  con- 
clusive Jind  absolute  when  they  come  iu  question  in  courts 
of  law.     Smith  v  Nelson,  IS  \'t.  Hll. 

"Where  rnles  and  regulations  are  made  by  Ihe  jiroper 
elnirch  functionaries,  and  such  rules  are  anthorized  by  the 
laws  of  the  order,  they  will  be  enforced  by  the  courts  when 
not  in  conflict  with  some  law  bearing  upon  the  subject  con- 
tained in  the  rules."  Alexander  v  Bowers,  70  S.  W.  342. 
(Tex.) 

The  decisions  of  ecclesiastical  courts,  like  those  of  every 
other  ju<licial  tribunal,  are  final,  as  tliev  are  the  best  judges 
of  what  constitutes  an  ottense  against  the  Word  of  God, 
and  the  discipline  of  the  church,  A  party  thinking  himself 
aggrieved  by  the  decision  of  a  lower  church  tribunal  should 
appeal  to  a  higher.  Skilton  v  Webster,  Brightly  N.  1*.  (Pa.; 
203. 

Where  a  minister-  and  his  ])arish  submit  a  controversy 
between  them  to  an  ecclesiastical  council  the  decision  of 
such  couiuil,  if  not  impeached  for  good  cause,  is  a  justifica- 
tion of  the  party'  conforming  to  it.  though  it  does  not  oper- 
ate as  a  judgment,  llollis  Street  Meetinghouse  v  I*ierj)ont, 
7  Mete.  (Mass.)  405. 

rpoii  (piestions  arising  under  the  discipline,  as  upon  those 
arising  under  the  articles  of  faith,  the  decisions  of  the 
ecclesiastical  courts  are  ordinarily  final,  and  they  will  be 
respected  and  enforced  by  the  courts  of  law.  But  if  such 
decisions  plainly  violate  the  law  they  profess  to  administer, 
or  are  in  conflict  with  the  laws  of  the  land,  they  will  not 
be  followed.    Krecker  v  Shirey,  1(53  Pa.  534. 

Judgment,  How  Enforced.     Ecclesiastical  courts  could  only 


ECCLESIASTICAL  COUKTS  227 

inflict  si)iritiial  (eiisuivs  or  |»;iss  Ju(l<;iiic'iil  on  tlie  moral 
aspects  of  the  question,  for  if  they  should  determine  and 
adjudge  the  right  to  possession  in  favor  of  one  i)art  as 
against  the  other,  they  are  utterly  powerless  to  enforce  their 
judgments.    Deaderick  v  Lampson,  11  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  52:?. 

Judgment,  When  Binding  on  Civil  Courts.  Wiienever  the 
questions  of  discipline,  or  of  faith,  or  ecclesiastical  rule, 
custom,  or  law  have  been  decided  by  the  highest  of  the 
church  judicatories  to  which  the  matter  has  been  carried, 
the  legal  tribunals  must  accept  such  deci.sions  as  tinal,  and 
as  binding  on  them,  in  their  application  to  the  case  before 
them.    Coniniittce  of  Missions  v  Pacific  Synod,  157  Cal.  105. 

Judgment,  When  Conclusive.  Where  the  subject-matter  of 
the  judgment  or  determination  of  the  ecclesiastical  coin! 
attemi)ted  to  be  brought  under  review  by  a  civil  conrt  is  of 
ecclesiastical  cognizance,  the  judgment  of  the  ecclesiastical 
court  is  conclusive,  and  no  civil  court  has  jurisdiction  or 
power  to  revise  it  or  to  question  its  correctness.  Sati<  ilcc 
V  U.  S.  20  A]»p.  1).  C.  :',o:^. 

Jurisdiction,  General  Rule.  The  decisions  of  ecclcsiasiicil 
courts,  like  every  other  judicial  tribunal,  are  tiiial,  as  tiny 
are  the  best  judges  of  what  constitutes  an  ollensc  againsi 
the  Word  of  God  and  the  discii)line  of  the  church.  .Vny 
other  than  those  courts  must  be  incompetent  judges  of 
matters  of  faith,  discipline,  and  doctrine;  an«i  civil  conris. 
if  they  should  be  so  unwise  as  to  attemjtt  t«»  sii|.ci\ise  ilieir 
judgments  on  matters  whi<"h  come  within  their  jnrisdiciion, 
would  only  involve  them.selves  in  a  sea  of  niiceilainly  and 
doubt,  which  would  do  anything  but  ini|H-o\e  eitlier  reliiiion 
or  good  morals.    <Mi.  v  Seiberl,  .*{  I'a.  St.  2S2. 

Jurisdiction,  When  Exclusive.  JM-clesiastical  comis  have 
exclusive  jurisdiction  in  matters  of  clinrcji  governineni. 
(hnrch  organization,  religiotis  tenets,  and  the  laws  of  reli 
gious  judicatories;  with  these  the  «-ivil  coiiits  must  not  and 
cannot  interfere,  but  must  leave  them  to  tlie  free,  nncoii- 
trolled  jnris<lict ion  of  tin'  Iribnnals  estahlishetj  by  tin* 
church,    for    thev    are    mailers   of    religious    faith    an<l    <oii 


L»L>s        'iMii:  ('i\  II,  LAW  AXh  tin:  cm  \n w 

scicMcc,  iiiid  .'iiT  snhjccis  I'oi'  <l<-lci  iiiiii;it  ion  Ity  ;i  jiirisdirt  ion 
(>r(]iiiiie<l  iiinl  inspired  by  a  |»o\\t'r  above  a  crealor  of  |»olit- 
ical  inslilulion.     P.ridjjjcs  \  ^^'ilson,  II   Ileisk.  (Tcnn.i    ir»S. 

Legislature,  Jurisdiction.  In  Octolier,  1771,  tlio  (Jeneral 
Court  of  Virginia  entertained  jurisdiction  to  hear  charges 
of  improper  coiHliict  ])ros('nt('(l  against  a  rector  of  the  parisli 
foi-niing  a  i»ai'l  of  the  lOstablisluMl  Chnrch.  (lodwin  v  Lnnan, 
Jeff.  (Va.)  9G. 

Mandamus.  When  the  organic  law  of  the  church  or  eccle- 
siastical organization  to  which  it  belongs  has  provided  rules 
and  regulations  for  the  settlement  of  disputes  between  a 
minister  and  his  congregation,  or  the  church  trustees  who 
have  control  of  the  building  and  property,  the  courts  will 
not  interfere  by  mandamus  until  there  has  been  a  final  deci- 
sion by  the  proper  church  authorities.  State  ex  rel  Mc- 
Neill V  Bibb  St.  Church,  84  Ala.  L*:}. 

Members,  Trial.  A  member  by  joining  a  church  agrees 
that  the  church  shall  be  the  exclusive  judge  of  his  right  to 
continue.  For  the  purpose  of  trying  a  mend)er  on  charges  of 
having  violated  the  rules  of  the  church,  or  the  laws  of  God, 
the  church  is  the  tribunal  created  by  the  organic  law.  The 
member  has  consented  that  for  all  spiritual  offenses  he  will 
abide  the  judgment  of  the  highest  tribunal  organized  under 
the  constitution  of  the  cliurch,  but  he  has  not  consented  to 
submit  to  usni'pation.  The  inquiry  whether  or  not  the  tri- 
bunal has  been  organized  in  conformity  with  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  church  is  not  ecclesiastical.  Where  a  member 
of  a  church  was  tried  on  charges,  and  appealed  from  the 
judgment  to  an  appellate  tribunal  provided  by  the  law  of 
the  cliurch,  it  was  held  that  he  was  entitled  to  have  such 
appellate  tribunal  constituted  as  required  by  the  law  of  tlie 
organization,  and  it  appearing  that  the  tribunal  was  not  so 
constituted,  but  was  apparently  constructed  with  a  view  of 
defeating  instead  of  promoting  justice,  the  appellant  was 
entitled  to  an  injunction  restraining  such  illegal  tribunal 
from  proceeding  in  the  matter.  The  civil  court  has  juris- 
diction to  determine  whether  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal  is 


ECCLESIASTICAL  Cur KTS  L»2;) 

constituted   as   requiied   hy   the   law   ol    the   deiiouiiualiuu. 
Hatfield  v  DeLong,  150  lud.  207. 

Object  and  Purpose.  The  object  and  i)ui-i)ose  of  a  i>i-oceed- 
ing  of  the  ecclesiastical  court,  in  cases  of  ciinie  or  iiimior- 
ality,  are  quite  different  from  that  of  pi-oceeding  and  con- 
viction for  crime  in  the  temporal  eonrts.  Sentences  of  the 
ecclesiastical  courts  in  crinunal  jjrosecntions  consist  of  spii-- 
itual  admonition,  suspension,  or  toi;il  deposition  from 
oflSce.  All  the  proceedings  of  these  tribunals  in  criminal 
causes  are  professedly  pn»  sdlntc  aiiiniii ;  and  there  is  not 
power  to  line  or  imi>ris(»nnient.     Satteiiee  v  l'.  S.  2(1  Ajip. 

1).  r.  rwi. 

Pewholder's  Right,  in  .Jacob  v  Ihdiow,  L'  Salk.  (lOng.) 
551,  it  was  held  that  a  j>erson  who  had  a  |»rescrij»tive  right 
to  a  pew,  being  disfnibed  in  his  right,  might  sue  in  a  spir- 
itual court  fo  have  his  ]iossession  <|niete(l. 

Power  Limited.  (Miuicli  judicatories  cannot  usurjt  legis- 
lative i>owers.  The  creation  of  church  judicatories  and  their 
investment  with  authoi-ity  is  one  of  the  functions  of  the 
sovereign  power.    Bear  v  Heasley,  1)8  Mi(  h.  27!». 

Sucli  a  court  has  no  jurisdiction  to  setth'  a  chui-ch- 
warden's  account.    Adams  v  Kusch,  2  Str.  (  lOng.  i   1  i:'.;i. 

As  a  general  j»rinciple,  ecclesiastical  judicatories  c;inn(»t 
interfere  with  the  temporal  concerns  of  the  congi-egation  or 
society  with  which  the  church  or  the  membeis  theicof  ;ire 
concerned.  Baptist  Clmich.  ilartfoid  \  NNitlicrhell.  :',  i'.iige 
Ch.  (N.  Y.)  200. 

An  ecclesiastical  coniM  cannot  eiiteilain  a  snit  as  to  the 
allotment  of  seats  in  a  jilace  of  di\ine  worship  unless  snch 
place  is  a  legally  consecrated  building.  P.al  I  isi-ouibc  \  l]\e, 
1)  .Tur.  N.  S.  (Kng.  I  21b. 

Power,  Necessity  of  Limitation.  The  doctrine  ilial  courts 
of  the  chui-ch  may  exercise  coordinat<'  jurisdiction  with  the 
sui>erior  courts  of  justice  is  om*  of  the  great  engines  by 
which  the  ]to\\ei-  of  the  papacy  was  upheld  and  lis  spiiifnal 
despotism  extendeil  ovei-  lOnrope.  The  spiritual  courts  uidle 
the  legislative,  judicial,  and  executlvj'  functions — the  iincuil* 


2:\{)        'I'm;  cin  ii.  law  am»  tiii;  <'iiri:(ii 

I  lolled  cxcrrisc  <»!'  sncli  :i  jmiwci-  would  iiiscsl  thi-iii  willi  :iii 
jilithority  (lie  iiiosi  ii  resist ildc  :iiid  ;i|»i»iilliiij(,  :tii<l  coiise- 
(|ii('ii(l_v  <"iii  iK'vci'  !)('  tolcnitcd  in  ;i  free  coniilry.  Sniitli  v 
Nelson,  IS  Vt.  511. 

Scotland.  The  Kirk  is  the  establisliod  church  of  Scotlniid 
— (lie  jurisdiction  of  their  jiidicjilories  was  conceded  or  con- 
tinned  by  act  of  Scottish  I'arlianient  at  an  early  day,  and 
was  contirnied  by  the  act  of  Union.  If  a  |»('ison  disobeyetl 
their  order,  the  aid  of  a  civil  conil.  the  Lords  of  Sessions, 
nii<;ht  be  obtained  to  put  him  to  the  horn.  The  decisions 
of  these  chnrcli  courts,  like  the  decisions  in  connnon  law 
rei)orts,  form  a  body  of  ecclesiastical  law  which  would  be 
recojiuized  in  the  other  courts.  These  judicatories  derive 
their  authority  through  the  acts  of  the  civil  Legislature; 
and  in  this  resjject  they  stand  in  the  same  foumlation  as 
lhe«t;hurch  of  lOugland.  It  was  claimed  for  them  that  their 
General  Assembly  was  a  superior  coordinate  ecclesiastical 
court — that  they  had  a  right  to  judge  absolutely  and  with- 
out control,  and  exclusively,  on  all  subjects  which  they  held 
to  be  within  their  jurisdiction.  Their  claim,  however,  was 
rejected  and  entirely  re])udiated  both  in  lOngland  and  by  the 
courts  of  Scotland.     Smith  v  Nelson.  IS  N't.  511. 

Secret  Investigations.  "While  Anglo-Saxon  notions  of  fair 
play  mux  lead  us  to  look  with  disfavor  u])on  secret  investi- 
gations, and  summary  determinations  by  one  person,  we 
must  not  forget  that  contentious  methods  of  investigation 
are  largely  English,  and  that  the  Konuin  system,  from  which 
the  Ronuin  Church  has  derived  its  juocedure,  has  always 
been  and  still  is  to  a  large  degree  inipiisitorial.  However 
much  we  may  think  that  o])en  and  iud)lic  ]>roceedings  and 
hearings  upon  due  notice  ought  to  be  had  in  every  investi- 
gation of  every  sort  or  charge  or  issue,  we  must  remember 
that  it  is  not  our  ])rovince  to  im]K)se  our  views  as  to  such 
matters  upon  religious  denominations."  Bonacum  v  Har- 
rington. 05  Neb.  S.'U. 

State  Not  Bound  by  Decisions.  The  decisions  of  ecclesias- 
tical courts  do  not  bind  the  state.     Such  courts  have  power 


ECCLKSIASTICAL  ("OlKTS  2.S1 

over  the  consciences  of  those  wlio  adniil  Iheir  antlioiii\  ; 
and  their  decisions  imist  be  taken  as  coMclnsive  cvicU'iice  as 
to  the  conscientions  convictions  of  their  subjects,  lint 
temporal  courts  could  not  be  bound  by  the  construction 
ji,iven  by  ecclesiastical  courts  to  Ihc  nn'anin«!;  of  a  term  ust'd 
in  the  civil  constitution.  Hart  v  Siliool  District,  Tliroops- 
vilh',  2  Lancaster  Law  Kev.  ( I'a.)  :U7. 

Vermont.  In  this  Stale  there  is  no  reli'jjious  establish- 
ment, no  ecclesiastical  law  or  courts,  cslablished  by  any 
authority.  All  Ihcir  laws  are  wantin<;'  in  this  essential 
requisite,  to  <>ive  llu-m  any  authority,  that  they  are  not  i)re- 
scribed  by  the  sui)renie  jjowcr  in  the  State,  and  thou«i,h  they 
may  form  constitutions,  enact  canons,  laws  or  ordinaiu-es, 
establish  courts,  or  make  any  decisions,  decrees  or  judg- 
ments, yet  they  can  have  only  a  voluntary  obedience,  cannot 
affect  any  civil  rights,  immunities,  or  contracts,  or  alter  or 
dissolve  any  relations  or  obligations  arising  from  contracts. 
Smith  v  Nelson,  IS  \'t.  511  ;  see  also  Civil  Coui'ts. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  LAW 

Origin,  232. 

Subordinate  to  civil  law,  232. 

Origin.  The  ()iij;iii  of  flie  canon  or  ecclesiastical  law  is 
s;ii(l  to  be  coeval  with  the  establishment  of  Christianity, 
nnih'r  the  apostles  and  their  immediate  snccessois,  who  are 
snpposed  to  have  framed  certiiin  ordinances  or  canons  for 
the  government  of  the  churcli  and  its  membere.  These  rules 
or  oi-dinances  are  called,  in  tlie  history  of  the  jirimitive 
church,  the  aitostolical  canons;  and  though  the  fact  of  their 
being  the  work  of  the  apostles  does  not  admit  of  positive 
proof,  yet  there  is  no  doubt  that  they  belong  to  a  very  early 
period  of  ecclesiastical  histoiy.  They  grew  and  accumu- 
lated from  the  exigencies  of  the  church  organization,  and 
hccjime  binding  u]><)n  its  mend)ers,  and,  in  fact,  constituted 
tlic  b;Lsis  of  the  modern  ecclesiastical  law.  Satterlee  v  U.  S., 
I'O  App.  D.  C.  803. 

Subordinate  to  Civil  Law.  Ecclesiastical  law  is  not  a  part 
(»f  the  law  of  this  State,  nor  are  equitable  rights  to  be  deter- 
mined by  it;  on  the  contrary,  when  a  court  of  equity  exer- 
cises its  ])owers  it  <loes  so  only  upon  equitable  ]>rinciples, 
irrespective  of  ecclesiastical  or  any  other  law.  Cohen  v 
Congregation  Shearith  Israel,  114  A.  I>.  (X.  Y. )  117. 


232 


ELECTIONS 

Adjoui-mnent,  233. 

Burden  of  proof,  234. 

By-laws,  234. 

Certificate  cannot  be  modified,  235. 

Hand  vote,  235. 

Illegal  votes,  235. 

Mandamus,  requiring  notice,  235. 

Meeting,  justice  may  call,  235. 

Method,  congregation  may  regulate,  235. 

Nominations,  236. 

Notice,  236. 

Place,  236. 

Presiding  officers,  236. 

Referee,  237. 

Regularity,  qualifications  of  voters,  237. 

Rescinding  vote,  238. 

Silence,  effect,  238. 

Validity,  notice,  239. 

Validity,  other  meeting  at  same  time,  239. 

Voter,  right  cannot  be  reconsidered,  240. 

Adjournment,  lu  March,  11)00,  the  se«siou  attempted  to 
postpone  the  annual  election  of  elders  from  the  regular  time 
in  Ajiril  until  after  the  meetin«i  of  the  (Jeneral  Assembly, 
which  had  under  consideration  a  question  relating;  to  the 
l)astor  of  the  church.  The  meeting  of  this  session  was  hehl 
at  the  residence  of  one  of  its  members,  but  not  on  the  re- 
(juired  notice.  The  pastor  was  not  present,  and  one  of  tlie 
elders  acted  as  the  moderator  pro  tern.  The  law  of  the 
cliurch  required  tlie  pastor  to  jii-eside  at  all  meetinus,  except 
in  certain  specified  cases,  of  whidi  this  was  not  one.  Tlie 
meeting  was  held  irregular,  and  its  action  inelVective.  Not- 
withstanding this  attemiiled  action  by  the  session,  regular 
annual  meetings  were  hebl   in    I'.tOO,  lUOl,  and    l'.i()L».     The 

233 


L'::i        Tiir:  ("i\  ii.  i,.\w  am>  'imii;  cm  kcii 

olliccl'S  clcclcd  ;i(  llicsc  iiicci  iii;j;s  wci'c  (Icchi  ictl  to  he  llip 
i'<»}i;uliir  olliccis  of  llic  sociclv.  iJjivton  v  Cjirlcr,  L'(MI  l';i.  Si. 
I!t1. 

Ill  Sloiitilitoii  V  KcyiioMs,  Ll  St  rniiji;*'  I  Iji*;.  i  KUT),  it  ;i|»- 
l)eare(l  lli;il  I  lie  vicnr  li:iil  (lie  right  to  ii<niiiii;il<'  one  clmrili- 
\v;inU'ii  :iii(l  llio  roiiuic^al  ion  oi'  ]»;irish  luid  tlit*  i-iglit  to 
cliose  aiiodici'.  At  an  election  where  the  ehoi»-o  was  to  be 
made  tlie  vicar,  aj;ainst  the  protest  of  members  of  tin?  con- 
gi"ej;ati(>n  ]H'esent,  adjonrned  the  meeting.  Such  members 
therenpon  continned  llie  meeting  and  elected  a  church- 
warden. It  was  lield  that  lie  was  entitled  to  tlie  office,  and 
tliat  (he  right  to  adjourn  the  meeting  was  iu  the  i>aris]i. 

Burden  of  Proof.  The  burden  of  ]>roof  is  on  tlie  jtersons 
claiming  to  have  been  elected  trustees.  African  Baptist 
rhnrch  V  AMiite.  24  Ky.  Law  Rep.  040. 

By-Laws.  Wheie  the  charter  vested  iu  the  congregation 
]>ower  to  make  bv-laws,  a  bydaw  was  held  valid  autliorizing 
the  president  of  the  cor]>oi-ation  to  apjioint  inspectors  of 
election.  A  by-law  was  also  held  valid  which  provided  that 
a  ticket  should  contain  nothing  but  the  names  of  candidates. 
Commonwealth  v  Woelper,  3  Ser.  &  R.  (Pa.  i  20. 

A  by-law  of  the  society  restricted  the  right  to  vote  to 
persons  who  had  been  members  of  the  church  twelve  mouths 
preceding  the  election.  A  subsequent  bydaw  itrohilMte<l  per- 
sons from  voting  who  were  in  arrears  two  years  on  ])ew  rent. 
This  by  law  was  sustained  iu  Commonwealth  v  Cain,  5  Ser. 
and  R.  (T'a.i  r>10. 

Certificate  Cannot  Be  Modified.  At  an  election  of  trustees  of 
the  society  known  as  tlie  Church  of  the  Turilans  the  iii- 
S]»ectors  declared,  at  the  close  of  the  election,  that  certain 
candidates  had  received  a  specified  number  of  votes,  being 
a  majority  of  the  votes  received.  Afterward  the  inspectors 
made  a  certificate  iu  which  they  reviewed  and  revised  the 
result  of  the  election,  declaring  that  certain  votes  assumed 
to  have  been  cast  for  the  successful  candidates  were  illegal. 
This  atteni])ted  review  by  the  insj^ectors  was  without  author- 
ity, and  the  i>ersous  receiving  the  highest  number  of  votes 


ELi:cTIONS  235 

were  held  to  have  been  legally  elected.  Votes  received  ;im<1 
counted  cannot  afterward  be  rejected  as  invalid.  Hartt  v 
Harvey,  :\'2  Barb.  (  N.  Y. )  55. 

Hand  Vote.  In  Wardens,  Christ  Church  v  Tope,  8  Gray 
(Mass.)  140,  an  election  of  officers  was  sustained  though 
elected  by  hand  vote  instead  of  by  a  written  vote,  as  pre- 
scribed by  a  previous  rule  adopted  by  the  congregation  at 
an  annual  meeting.  Such  a  meeting  could  not  bind  its  suc- 
cessors as  to  the  method  of  conducting  an  election.  The 
officers  so  chosen  were  dec  lared  regularly  elected.  A  resolu- 
tion to  increase  the  nund>er  of  vestrymen  could  not  alfect 
the  existing  organization  until  the  new  officers  were 
elected. 

Illegal  Votes.  The  reception  of  illegal  votes  at  the  elec- 
tion of  officers  of  a  religious  society  does  not  invalidate  the 
election  if  it  does  not  affect  the  result.  Wardens,  Christ 
Church  V  Pope,  8  Gray  (Mass.)  140. 

Mandamus,  Requiring  Notice.  The  rector  may  be  required 
by  mandamus  to  give  notice  of  an  election  of  vestrymen. 
People  ex  rel  Fleming  v  Hart,  36  St.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  874,  13 
N.  Y.  Sup]).  1)0.3. 

Meeting,  Justice  May  Call.  In  the  absence  of  a  provision 
in  the  charter  for  calling  meetings  for  the  election  of  trus- 
tees such  a  meeting  nmy  be  called  by  a  justice  of  the  ])eace 
on  the  application  of  live  members  of  the  society.  Ladd  v 
Clements,  4  Cush.  (Mass.)  476. 

Method,  Congregation  May  Regulate.  In  1724,  at  a  meeting 
of  the  congregation,  a  rule  was  adopted  that  thereafter  the 
churchwardens  and  vestry  be  always  chosen  by  a  written 
vote.  This  meeting  had  no  power  over  the  election  <»f  officers 
at  a  succeeding  meeting,  and  the  rule  adopteil  relative  to 
the  method  of  voting  could  not  bind  the  congregation  at  a 
subsequent  election.  I'ei'sons  assembled  at  any  meeting 
had  full  jiower  to  regulate  the  method  of  conducting  elec- 
tions, and  were  not  bound  by  the  action  of  a  previcms  meet- 
ing. Therefore  an  election  at  a  subseipient  meeting  by  hand 
vote,  instead  of  written  ballot,  was  held  valid,  and  the  |)er- 


2'M\  'I'lli;  (IN  IL   LAW    AND  Till:  (IK   IJCII 

sons  (Iccl.ircd  clcclcd  wci'J'  cut  il  led  lo  iIjc  ollicc.  \V;ii-(]oiih, 
(Mirisl  CIiihtIi  v  P(»ih'.  S  (Jniy  (Mass.)   1-K). 

Nominations.  II  Ii;mI  lonj;  Im'cii  liic  custom  iu  this  Hociety 
for  the  (•(nisisloiv  lo  ii()iiiiii;il('  (•.iiididates  for  doarons  and 
elders,  and  for  Hie  minister  lo  aiinonnee  the  nominations 
from  the  pnliMt  a  si>e(ifie<l  lime  before  lOaster  Monday,  when 
the  election  occni-red.  The  comi»lainant  was  elected  as  elder 
at  a  re<jnlai'  meetinji  l»u(  wilhont  snch  nomination.  Having 
been  refused  induction  into  office,  and  having  applied  for  a 
writ  of  mandamus  to  comytel  such  induction,  it  was  held 
that  the  custom  of  the  society  an<l  consistory  as  to  nomina- 
tions was  valid  and  binding  on  all  members,  and  that  there- 
fore the  election  of  the  com])laiiiant  was  irregular.  Miller 
V  Eschbach,  4n  Md.  1. 

Notice.  Where  the  charter  makes  the  minister  president 
of  the  vestry  and  requires  notice  of  an  election  to  be  given 
by  the  president,  such  notice  is  necessary  to  constitute  a 
valid  election.    Smith  v  Erb,  4  Gill.  (Md.)  437. 

Where  the  law  of  the  church  required  the  election  of 
vestrymen  to  be  held  on  Easter  Monday,  and  notice  thereof 
to  be  given  at  regular  divine  service  on  the  preceding  Sun- 
day, and  an  election  was  not  held  on  that  day,  but  on  the 
.*]Oth  of  July  following,  jmrsuant  to  a  notice  given  at  an 
irregular  church  service  on  the  preceding  Sabbath  by  a 
rector  Mho  had  been  sui)er.seded,  but  who  intruded  into  the 
church  for  the  j>urpose  of  holding  service,  the  election  held 
on  the  30th  of  July  was  held  to  be  irregular  and  invalid. 
Dahl  V  Talache,  os'cal.  248. 

Place.  The  election  must  be  held  at  the  usual  place  of 
meeting.  American  Primitive  Society  v  Pilling,  4  Zab. 
( N.  J. )  (\:^:\. 

Presiding-  Officers.  In  People  ex  rel  Smith  v  Peck,  11  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  (>04,  a  Baptist  minister  was  held  not  to  be  an  elder 
within  the  meaning  of  the  statute  requiring  two  elders  to 
preside  at  a  church  election. 

This  case  involved  the  validity  of  a  church  election,  it 
appearing  that  there  were  two  sets  of  presiding  officers,  two 


ELECTIONS  287 

polls,  and  the  alleged  election  ol  two  sets  of  trustees.  At 
one  of  the  elections  a  ministef  of  the  church  was  one  of  the 
presiding-  otlicers.  At  the  other  election  two  elders  presided, 
as  required  by  the  statute.  It  was  held  that  the  alleged 
election  at  which  the  minister  acted  as  one  of  the  presiding 
officers  was  irregular  and  illegal,  because  he  was  not  an 
elder  within  the  meaning  of  the  statute.  The  other  election, 
presided  over  by  two  elders,  was  sustained. 

Under  the  New  York  religious  corporations  act  of  18K5 
it  was  held  that  two  persons  chosen  by  the  members  of  the 
congregation  present  should  preside  at  an  election.  Con- 
cord Society,  Strykersville  v  Stanton,  38  Hun.  N.  Y.,  1. 

See  Peoide  v  La  Coste,  37  N.  Y.  192,  involving  the  validity 
of  the  election  of  churchwardens  and  vestrymen  holding, 
among  other  things,  that  the  rector  is  both  the  presiding  and 
returning  officer,  and  that  his  certificate  of  election  is  pre- 
sumptively valid. 

Referee.  The  court  has  power  to  appoint  a  referee  to 
supervise  a  special  election  ordered  on  granting  a  writ  of 
mandamus  directing  the  rector  to  join  with  the  trustees  in 
giving  notice  of  a  special  election  to  fill  vacancies.  People 
ex  rel  Fleming  v  Hart,  36  St.  Rep.  874,  21  N.  Y.  Supp. 
673. 

Regularity,  Qualifications  of  Voters.  The  case  involved  the 
question  of  the  regularity  of  the  election  of  trustees,  each 
party  claiming  to  have  been  lawfully  elected.  Two  elections 
for  trustees  were  held  on  the  0th  of  June,  1$51,  one  in  the 
schoolhouse  near  the  church,  the  other  in  the  open  yard. 
The  respondents  were  elected  at  the  jxdl  in  the  schoolhouse, 
the  relators  at  the  other  poll.  The  act  of  incori)oration  is 
silent  as  to  the  mode  of  conducting  charter  elections.  It 
fixed  the  date  of  the  election  but  did  not  direct  who  should 
conduct  it.  No  by-law  on  this  subject  was  adopted.  It  was 
held  that  the  only  legal  election  on  Monday  after  Whitsun- 
day was  that  which  was  held  by  officers  duly  chosen  on  the 
previous  Thursday  to  conduct  the  election,  and  the  trustees 
elected  at  an  unauthorized  and  irregular  ])oll  could  not  hold 


L':;s        Tin:  cin  ii.  law  and  tiii;  cm  i;("II 

I  lie  nllicc.  ('\cii  ir  iIh'v  \v('|-('  cIiuscii  hy  ;i  riiiijorily  (;!'  the 
\(  tiers. 

TIh'  coiii'l  s:ii(l  I  lie  cliicr  (|ii<'s(i(»ti  in  llic  cusc  involved  the 
li^hl  of  iiiciiihtTs  of  this  K«»iii;iii  Ciitliolic  ('Imrdi  to  vote  at  a 
|»r('liniiii;ii-y  chMtioii  of  presiding  ((llicci-s,  siicli  right  to  vote 
hciiig  (IctiTiiiiiicd  by  tlic  coiitrihiilioiis  of  iMenil)ei's.  Under 
llie  act  of  incorpoi-at ion  tlic  li^lit  to  vote  d(!p(Mided  on  the 
f;i(t  thai  ;i  iiuMidx'i-  had  either  contrilMited  to  the  erection 
oi  the  clnncli  or  lia<l  annually  thereafter  contrihnted  not 
less  than  lOs.  foi'  the  cm-rent  expenses.  The  conti-ihntions 
ninst  have  been  annually  or  yearly,  and  the  re(piirenient  of 
the  act  was  not  satisfied  by  ])aynient  on  the  day  of  election 
for  the  pur])ose  of  (puilifying  the  i>erson  as  a  voter.  Hence 
election  officers  were  justified  in  refusinj.*-  to  receive  the 
votes  of  such  ]iersons.  The  trustees  chosen  at  a  meeting 
held  bj'  the  election  officers  regularly  elected  by  legal  voters 
were  declared  to  be  the  lawful  trustees  of  the  society.  Juker 
V  ronimonwealth  ex  rel  Fisher,  20  Ta.  St.  484. 

Rescinding  Vote.  A  board  consisting  of  the  vicar  (pre- 
siding), two  churchwardens,  and  four  overseers  of  the  poor 
met  for  the  ]iurj)ose  of  electing  a  master  of  a  charity  school. 
A  candidate  was  chosen  by  a  vote  of  four  to  three,  the  vicar 
giving  the  casting  vote  in  his  favor.  Subsequently  a  ques- 
tion arose  as  to  the  candidate's  ability  to  accept  the  office, 
and  by  a  vote  of  five  to  two  his  election  was  rescinded  and 
the  meeting  adjourned.  It  was  held  in  Attorney-General  t 
Matthew,  '^  Russ.  (Eng.  i  .^)00,  that  so  long  as  the  boai-d  was 
in  session  it  had  i)ower  to  rescind  the  action,  provided  it 
acted  in  good  faith,  and  for  the  welfare  of  the  charity. 

Silence.  Effect.  A  majority  of  the  legal  voters  who  choose 
to  vote  always  constitutes  an  election.  When  a  majority 
expressly  dissent  but  do  not  vote,  the  election  by  the  minor- 
ity is  good.  It  is  no  objection  to  an  election  that  illegal 
votes  were  received  unless  the  illegal  votes  clianged  the 
nuijority.  The  mere  fact  of  their  existence  never  avoids  an 
election.  First  Parish,  Sudbury,  v  Stearns,  21  IMck.  (Mass.) 
148. 


ELECTIONS  'j:;'J 

Validity,  Notice.  The  society  was  iiRoi'i)orated  by  legis- 
lative act  ill  17J)7.  The  charter  provided  for  the  election  of 
four  elders  and  lour  trustees,  who  were  to  compose  tiie 
vestry.  The  minister  was  to  be  president  of  the  vestry,  and 
he  was  required  to  give  notice  of  elections.  A  controversy 
arose  in  the  society  resulting-  in  the  election,  in  IS-lJi,  of  two 
sets  of  elders  and  trustees,  each  claiming  to  be  regular,  one 
set  claiming  to  represent  the  original  society  and  its  min- 
ister duly  chosen,  while  it  was  claimed  that  the  other  set 
represented  a  party  which  had  in  ettect  usurped  the  power 
and  jurisdiction  of  the  congregation,  and  that  these  elders 
and  trustees  were  not  regularly  elected.  It  was  held  that 
even  if  the  election  of  1843,  at  which  certain  elders  and 
trustees  were  chosen  was  invalid,  subsequent  elections,  held 
on  due  notice,  could  not  be  questioned,  and  the  court  could 
not  declare  them  invalid.  It  was  held  that  both  elections 
in  1843  could  not  be  valid,  because  one  of  them  was  held 
without  a  notice  of  the  election  given  by  the  i)astor  as  re- 
quired by  the  charter;  consequently,  jiersons  claiming  to 
have  been  elected  without  such  notice  could  not  lawfully 
take  the  offices.  Whatever  might  be  the  situation  as  to  the 
validity  of  the  election,  it  was  held  that  mandamus  was  not 
the  proper  remedy,  for  the  reason  that  a  legal  remedy 
existed  by  which  the  ]»ersons  entitled  to  the  management  of 
the  corporation  could  obtain  possession  of  its  jiroperty. 
Smith  V  Erb,  4  Gill.  (Md.)  437. 

Validity,  Other  Meeting  at  Same  Time.  An  election  of  trus- 
tees was  held  on  the  (Ith  oi'  .laiitiaiy,  IIM.'I,  nn<ler  a  notice 
regnlar  in  form,  but  with  this  notice  an  additional  notice 
was  given  Ihat  a  class  meeting  would  be  held  in  connection 
with  the  corporate  meeting.  The  election  notice  contained 
no  reference  to  a  class  meeting.  The  election  at  smli  a 
meeting  was  sustained,  the  court  observing  that  even  it 
both  meetings  Avere  called  for  the  same  honr  and  at  tin.' 
same  place,  this  would  not  alfcct  the  rcgidaiity  of  ihc  ( (»r- 
I)orate  meeting  unless  the  rights  of  some  p('rs(tns  entitled 
to  attend  and  ])aitieipate  therein  were  allected.     This  did 


L'lO  Tin;  <'l\  11.   LAW   AM)  Till;  riirHPH 

IH)(   ;i|»j»c;ir  In  he  the  <;is('.      rc()j)le  CX  icl    Wilson    v  Alricail 
W.  M.  H.  (Mnin-li,  ir>(;  A.  D.  (N.  Y.)  38«;. 

Voter,  Right  Cannot  Be  Reconsidered.  A  person  voted  at  a 
cliurrh  election  without  clialleii*;!'  and  i-eceived  a  majority 
of  the  votes  cast  for  the  office  of  ( Inucliwai-deii,  and  the 
result  was  <h'chn'ed  accordingly.  It  was  held  that  the  pre- 
sidium; officer  could  not  afterward  reconsider  the  matter, 
<le(lare  the  person  not  qualified  as  a  voter,  and  therefore 
not  entitle<1  to  the  office.  A  mandamus  was  granted  requir- 
ing the  rector  to  recognize  as  a  churchwarden  the  person  so 
elected.    Re  Williams,  57  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  327. 


EVANGELICAL  ASSOCIATION 

History  and  form  of  government,  241. 

Organization,  243. 

Description,  244. 

Division  of  property,  effect,  245. 

Expulsion  of  member  terminates  office,  245. 

General  Conference,  place  of  meeting,  24G. 

Minister,  power  of  appointment,  247. 

Secession,  when  seceders  cannot  control  property,  247. 

History  and  Form  of  Government.  This  association  was 
organized  about  tlic  year  ISOO^  and  is  a  volnntary  nnincor- 
porated  religious  denomination.  Its  doctrine,  discipline, 
and  chnrcli  government  are  similar  to  those  of  the  Metliodist 
Episcoi)al  Church.  "Its  ecclesiastical  organization  consists 
of  the  society  or  congregation  divided  into  classes.  Each 
congregation  liolds  its  Quarterly  Conference,  wliicli  is  the 
local  governing  body  of  each  church,  and  it  meets  four 
times  each  year.  The  General  Association  is  divided  into 
what  are  known  as  'Annual  Conferences,'  of  whicli  there 
are  twenty-five  in  iMnubci-,  each  of  which  holds  a  session 
annually,  and  its  nicndtcrsliip  consists  of  all  fully  ordained 
ministers  who  have  been  in  the  itineracy.  These  Annual 
Conferences  are  under  the  control  of  what  is  known  as  the 
(leneral  Conference,  which  meets  once  in  I'oui-  years.  The 
Annual  ConCei-ences  are  subordinate  to,  and  are  established 
or  abolished,  reorganized  or  their  boundaries  changed  by 
the  General  Conference.  The  Annual  Conferences  are  pre- 
sidecl  over  by  a  ]»isho]»,  if  one  is  jtresent.  In  the  absence  of 
a  bishoj)  the  members  of  the  Conference  are  required  to  elect 
a  president,  and  the  president  and  the  presiding  eldeis  of 
the  Conference  assign  tlie  preachers  to  their  i-esjicctive 
ciiarges.     MiMubeis  of  the  (Jeneral  Conference   are  elected 

241 


•jiL'        Tin;  ("i\iL  i-.\\\  AM)  riw-:  cm'KCH 

lioiii  llic  Aiimiiil  ('oiirci'ciHcs  (»ii  ;i  pfcsciiltcd  rjitio.  The 
(!cii('r;il  ( 'onrciriicc  olccls  llie  l)isli()|»s  for  ;i  term  of  four 
yciirs.  The  l;iw  or  consjitnlioii  of  flic  clnii-cli  is  (-oiitwiiKMl 
ill  :i  hook  ciillcMJ  flic  Discipline,  in  which  flic  powers  of  the 
(liffereTit  ofticial  bodies  of  the  church  ;ire  jirescribed."  Uy 
flic  Discipline,  the  time  iiiid  jiljice  of  holding  the  (Icii(?riil 
Conference  \v;is  fo  he  (lcfcrinine<l  Ity  flic  bishops  wifli  flic 
conscnf  of  lli«*  ni;ijoi-ify  of  flie  (icneral  ( 'oiilVrcncc,  or  if 
there  is  no  Itishop  pi-cscnf,  flic  (Jcnci-al  Conference  may,  by 
vofe.  fix  such  fiine  and  place;  or  if  no  action  is  taken  at  the 
(Iciicr.il  ( 'oiifcrcnce,  then  flic  oldest  Annual  Confci-ence  was 
anth<ni/c(l  fo  fix  flie  fiine  and  ])lace  of  the  meetiiifj;  of  the 
next  (leneral  ('onl'erence,  and  was  recpiired  to  notify  other 
Animal  Conferences  accordingly.  At  the  General  Conference 
held  in  Buffalo,  in  18S7,  a  resolution  was  adojited  fixing  the 
time  of  the  meeting  of  the  General  Conference  in  18!)1,  and 
there  being  no  invitation  for  the  next  General  Conference, 
authorized  the  Board  of  Publication  of  the  church  to  fix  the 
place.  The  Board  of  Publication  was  composed  of  the 
bishoi)s  of  the  church  and  eight  other  persons  ^elected  from 
eight  districts,  into  which  the  general  association  is  divided. 
In  1800  this  board  fixed  the  place  of  the  meeting  of  the  next 
General  Conference  at  Indianapolis,  Indiana.  In  February, 
1891,  the  East  Pennsylvania  Annual  Conference,  claiming 
to  be  the  oldest  Annual  Conference,  adopted  a  resolution 
fixing  the  place  of  meeting  of  the  next  General  Conference 
at  Philadelphia.  This  action  resulted  in  a  division  of  the 
denomination,  and  in  October,  1891,  the  time  fixed  by  the 
]»revions  (leneral  Conference  for  the  next  General  Confer- 
ence, two  General  Conferences  were  held,  one  at  Phila- 
deljihia  and  one  at  Indianapolis.  Prior  to  these  General 
Conferences,  and  apparently  prior  to  the  action  of  the  Board 
of  Publication  in  designating  Indianapolis  as  the  place  of 
meeting  of  the  General  Conference  of  1891,  a  church  court 
had  been  held  by  which  all  the  bishops  were  deposed  from 
otiice.  The  Indiana]»olis  General  Conference  revei'scd  the 
action  of  this  church  court  and  held  that  the  judgment  of 


i:\A.\(;i:iJ('AL  association  lm;; 

sns|»i'iisioii  was  void,  and  reelt'clcd  two  of  tlic  hisliops  tor 
the  next  foiir  years.  The  Philadelphia  Conrcrence  ratilii'<l 
tlie  suspension  and  elected  three  bishops,  incliidinj;  Hishop 
Dubs,  who  had  been  sus])ended.  lOighleen  Annual  Couler- 
ences  sent  delegates  to  the  Indianapolis  (leneral  Con  Ter- 
ence; the  other  Conferences  were  divided,  some  oi  theia 
sending  delegates  to  this  Conference,  and  others  to  the  I'liil- 
adelphia  Conference. 

In  1800  the  Des  ^loines  Annual  Conference  was  divid«'d 
on  a  question  involving  a  status  of  the  bishops.  In  IS!H'  the 
majority  party  in  tliat  Conference  brought  an  action  to  re- 
strain the  preachers  rei»i«*senling  the  seceding  jiarty  from 
attempting  to  occupy  the  i»uli»its  of  certain  church  buildings 
as  ministers  of  the  l">vangelical  Association,  because  the 
]>laintiMs  w(»re  invested  with  that  right,  being  the  regularly 
ajipointed  j>reacliers  in  charge.  It  was  held  that  the  acti(tn 
of  the  General  Conference  of  1887  in  referring  to  the  Board 
of  Publication  the  question  of  designating  the  jtlace  for  the 
next  (Jeneral  Conference  was  a  valid  exercise  of  jjower;  that 
the  Indianapolis  Conference  was  the'  lawful  high  church 
court  of  the  association,  and  was  authorized  by  the  con- 
stitution of  the  church  to  review  and  declare  void  the  pro- 
ceedings w^hich  resulted  in  the  alleged  suspension  of  the 
bisho])s,  and  to  elect  others  for  the  Constitutional  ]>eriod 
and  that  the  Annual  Conferences  over  which  they  i)residei| 
were  the  lawful  Conferences  of  the  association.  It  was  held 
in  substance  also  that  the  jdaintitl's,  comjtosing  a  majority 
of  the  I>es  Moines  C<nirerence,  were  in  fact  the  seceding 
party,  and  ii-regular,  and  that  the  minority  of  that  Con- 
ference, jiresided  over  by  a  bishop  whose  suspension  was 
declared  illegal,  constituted  the  regular  ('(aifercnce.  Au- 
racher  v  Yerger,  00  la.  558;  see  also  Krecki-r  v  Shirey,  l(i:i 

Pa.  n.-u. 

Organization.  The  Evangelical  As.sociation  of  North 
America  is  a  religious  denomination  organized  about  ISOO, 
under  the  connect ional  or  associated  lorm  of  church  govern- 
ment, founded  ui»on  lluit  of  I  lie  .Mdluxlist  ICpiscojtal  Church, 


244        Till;  ("i\  11.  LAW   .\M»  Tin;  <'iiri;<ii 

:iii(l  liaviiiji  ;i  system  of  }j;i-;i(J('<l  cxcctil  ivr.  I«';;islal  ivc  and 
judicial  ecidesiastical  bodies  and  officers,  and  a  code,'  of  rulen 
known  as  the  I>is(i]>lin(\  TIm*  Icrritorv  coven-d  In-  said 
denomination  is  divided  into  Annnal  Conference  districts, 
in  each  of  which  is  held  a  yearly  meeting  of  the  jireachers 
of  the  denomination  localed  in  snch  disti-ict.  For  certain 
purjtoses  of  local  administration  each  Annual  Conference 
exercises  jurisdiction  over  all  its  own  members  and  over  the 
con<;rej]i;ations  within  its  limits.  By  the  Ceneral  Conference, 
held  every  four  years,  bishojts  aie  elected  for  a  term  of  four 
years.  It  is  the  special  duty  of  a  bisho])  to  preside  over 
the  Annual  Conference,  and,  with  the  aid  of  the  presiding 
elders  thereof,  to  appoint  at  the  Conference  session  the 
l»reachers  to  their  respective  pastoral  charges  for  the  ensu- 
ing year,  the  same  being  the  only  recognized  method  of 
appointing  ministers  in  use  in  said  denomination  since  its 
origin.  Neither  the  lay  members  of  the  several  congrega- 
tions nor  the  trustees  thereof,  according  to  the  Discipline 
of  said  denomination,  have  anj*  voice  or  vote  in  the  selection 
of  their  pastors,  nor  any  power  to  reject  a  pastor  who  has 
been  appointed  in  the  manner  aforesaid. 

Under  the  Discipline  a  presiding  elder  is  recpiired  to 
superintend  the  spiritual  and  temporal  affairs  of  the  de- 
nomination within  his  district,  to  enforce  all  disciplinary 
l)rovisions,  to  hold  services,  and  otherwise  to  officiate  in  the 
various  houses  of  worship  in  his  district,  and  once  in  every 
three  months  to  call  and  preside  over  a  quarterly  Conference 
held  in  the  house  of  worship  of  each  pastoral  charge.  In 
this  denomination  a  ])astor's  appointment  over  any  partic- 
ular charge  lasts  for  one  year  only,  though  he  may  be  reap- 
pointed at  an  Annual  Conference,  but  not  more  than  three 
times  in  succession.  Every  pastor  who  is  a  married  man  is 
entitled  to  occupy  the  parsonage  belonging  to  his  congrega- 
tion.   Fuchs  V  Meisel,  102  Mich.  357. 

Description.  This  association  was  an  unincorporated 
society,  composed  of  about  30,000  menibers,  residing  at  dif- 
ferent places  in  several  States  and  in  Canada,  who  hold  to 


EVANGELICAL  ASSOCL\TION  247) 

a  (letiued  system  ol'  faitli,  who  ;ii('  imiicd  in  Quarterly, 
Annual  and  General  Conferences,  and  who  are  governed  by 
a  certain  jjrescribed  Discipline,  and  by  r\ilos  of  order 
adoi>ted  from  time  to  time  by  tlie  legislative  power  of  the 
association.  Its  organization  is  as  complete  and  minute  as 
that  of  any  existing  religious  society  in  the  country.  And 
it  is  strictly  and  exclusively  a  religious  association,  existing 
only  for  religious  purposes.  Bequests  to  this  association 
were  sustained  in  Evangelical  Association's  Appeal,  i>5  Pa. 
St.  310. 

Division  of  Property,  Effect.  This  corporation  was  organ- 
ized to  supj)ort  the  faith  of,  and  to  be  connected  with,  the 
German  Evangelical  Synod  of  North  America,  especially 
with  the  division  known  as  the  Wisconsin  District.  The 
corporation  took  title  to  its  property  cliarged  with  a  law- 
ful trust,  and  they  could  not  divert  the  property  to  incon- 
sistent uses  against  the  protest  of  any  nieniber.  There  was 
also  an  Evangelical  Lutheran  Synod  of  Wisconsin,  distiiu-t 
and  separate  from,  but  holding  views  somewhat  similar  to 
the  Evangelicals.  Dissensions  arose  in  the  society  regarding 
faith  and  doctrine.  Persons  in  control  of  the  society  changed 
its  name  to  the  p]vangelical  Lutheran  Creed  congregation, 
used  books  in  the  Sunday  schools  not  authorized  by  the 
Evangelicals,  and  dissolved  the  relations  existing  between 
the  society  and  the  Wisconsin  District,  and  declared  that 
the  congregation  shall  be  and  remain  Evangelical  Lutheran, 
and  that  the  j»roperty  in  case  of  schism  or  division  shnll  be 
enjoyed  only  by  those  who  adhere  to  the  constitution  as  so 
amended.  It  also  appeared  that  the  society  was  emjdoying 
a  pastor  who  had  departed  from  the  Ihangelical  faith.  Tlie 
plaintiffs  sought  to  obtain  jtossession  and  control  of  the 
property  on  the  ground  of  its  diversion  by  the  managers 
of  the  corj)oration.  It  was  held  that  the  i)laintilV's  claim 
had  been  sufliciently  established.  Marien  v  Evangelical 
Creed  Congregation,  Milwaukee,  132  Wis.  O.")!). 

Expulsion  of  Member  Terminates  Office.  Dill'erences  having 
arisen  in  the  local  society,  (iiic  p;iity  seceded  from  the  churi'h 


L'K;  Tin:  ("l\ll.   LAW    ANh  tin;  ("III   kcii 

2111(1  joined  nil  iissocialioii  known  jis  tin;  United  lOvan^tdieal 
('hui<li.  They  were  subse(|iieiilly  exixdled  from  the  church 
and  were  cut  oH"  from  all  cliuich  riu;hts  and  privile^^es  l»y 
the  regular  ecclesiastical  aniliorities  of  the  lOvangelical 
Association  of  North  America.  They  brought  an  action  to 
secure  control  of  the  church  i»ro])ert3%  but  it  appeared  that 
their  offices  as  trustees  had  become  vacant  before  the  bill 
was  tiled.  Hy  their  secession  from  the  church  they  were  no 
longer  entitled  to  the  control  of  the  church  jiroperty.  The 
church  ])roj>erty  was  bought  under  the  condition  that  it 
should  be  subject  to  the  rules  of  the  Evangelical  Association 
of  North  America.  The  jdaintitls  had  no  standing  in  court 
and  were  not  entitled  to  the  relief  demanded.  Garrett  v 
Nace,  5  Pa.  Sup.  Ct.  475,  Nace  Appeal,  11  Leg.  Rec.  (Pa.) 
41. 

General  Conference,  Place  of  Meeting.  The  Conference  of 
1887  aj»pointed  the  usual  Board  of  Publication,  composed 
of  the  bishops  and  eight  other  persons,  who  were  respectively 
selected  from  the  eight  general  districts,  with  power  to 
select  the  place  of  meeting  of  the  next  General  Conference. 
The  Board  named  Indianapolis  as  the  place  of  meeting  of 
the  General  Conference  of  1801.  After  the  Board  of  Publi- 
cation had  designated  Indianajiolis  as  the  place  of  meeting 
of  the  next  General  Conference,  the  East  Pennsylvania 
Annual  Conference  met  at  Alleutown,  and  declared  illegal 
the  action  of  the  General  Conference  of  1887  in  delegating 
to  the  Board  of  I*ublication  power  to  designate  the  place  of 
meeting  of  the  next  General  Conference.  This  Annual  Con- 
ference then  designated  Philadelphia  as  the  place  of  meet- 
ing of  the  next  General  Conference.  This  action  by  the 
oldest  Annual  Conference  was  nugatory,  for  the  reason  that 
the  place  of  meeting  had  already  been  fixed  by  the  body 
charged  with  that  duty  by  the  General  Conference. 

Eighteen  Annual  Conferences  sent  delegations  to  the 
Indianapolis  General  (Conference,  and  two  sent  delegations 
to  the  Philadelphia  Conference.  The  remaining  tive  sent 
delegates   to   each    Conference.      Tln^    Indianapolis   General 


EVAXGKLICAL  ASSOCIATION  247 

Coufereiice  had  a  quorum  of  lejjjal  rejji'esentatives  of  the 
Annual  Conferences.  The  Philadelphia  Conference  had 
less  than  a  quorum. 

The  court  held  that  (those)  members  of  tlie  denomination 
who  adhered  to  the  Indianapolis  (reneral  Conference  consti- 
tuted the  Evangelical  Association.  The  alleged  Conference 
which  met  in  l*hiladel])hia  was  unauthorized,  its  assum])tion 
of  ecclesiastical  aulhority  was  an  act  of  rebellion  against 
the  organization  with  which  its  members  had  been  con- 
nected, and  whose  name  it  adopted.  It  was  furtlier  held 
tliat  property  which  prior  to  181)1  belonged  to  the  ICvangel- 
ical  Association,  now  belonged  to,  and  must  be  controlled 
by  those  who  still  constitute  that  organization.  The  Annual 
Conference  which  <lid  not  a<lhere  lo  the  Indianapolis  Gen- 
eral Conference,  but  assumed  to  act  undei-  authority  of  the 
Philadelpliia  Conference,  had  no  valid  standing  in  the 
denomination,  and  had  no  authority  to  ai)[»oint  ministers  to 
particular  local  churches.  Krecker  v  Shirey,  163  I'a.  5:54, 
see  also  Dubs  v  Esher,  (>  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  .*>12  Schweiker  v 
Husser,  14(1  111.  ?M). 

Minister,  Power  of  Appointment.  The  ICast  Pennsylvania 
Annual  Conference,  which  refused  to  adhere  to  the  (reneral 
Conference  at  Indianapolis  in  1S!)1,  ai»]»ointed  a  minister  to 
this  church.  The  court  held  that  his  a])|K)iiilment  was  irreg- 
ular. ^rend)ors  of  this  Annual  Confei-cnce  who  adhered  to 
the  IndiMiia|>()lis  Confci-cnce  met  and  ap]»(>inted  a  minister. 
This  aclion  was  allcrwaiMl  i-alilicd  by  the  Indianajiolis  (Icn- 
eral  ConlVi-cnce.  The  couiM  held  that  this  i-at ilicat ion  \ali- 
dated  the  ap|K)intin('Mt  made  by  the  ])r()visi<>nal  Annual  ("(in- 
ference, and  tlKM-cforc  that  tlic  minister  appointed  Ity  that 
provisional  Conleicnce  was  entitled  to  the  ollice  as  jtastoi- 
of  the  Imnianuel  Church,  and  was  the  only  pastor  that 
church  was  authorized   to  receive.      Krecker  v   Shirey.    !(»;{ 

Pa.  r>:u. 

Secession,  When  Seceders  Cannot  Control  Property.  The 
Salem's  Ai<l  Society  was  an  )inincor|)oi'ated  religions  asso- 
ciation, and  an  indepcMident  soeiety  with  ahsdinle  powei'  over 


248  TIM';  CIN  IL   LAW    AM)  Till:  CliritCll 

its  jiropfMly.  'I'lic  sociriy  Ii.mI  imiwcp  uiidei"  its  <-()iiHtitnlion 
lo  <lis|K)s('  (»r  ifs  IiiikIs  accordin}^  to  its  own  judf^riiciit.  After 
the  election  of  oniccis  of  the  society  in  1801  certain  disaf- 
fected iiUMnbers  withdi-ew,  and  formed  a  new  society.  They 
hroujjfht  an  action  against  the  oiij^inal  society  to  obtain 
possession  of  the  funds  tlien  on  liainl.  The  court  held  that 
the  original  society  was  entitled  to  the  j)ossession  an«l  con- 
trol of  the  funds.  Manning  v  Shoemaker,  7  Pa.  Su])er.  Ct. 
375. 


EVANGELICAL  LUTHERAN 

Historical  sketch,  249. 

Division  of  society,  effect  on  property  rights,  249. 

Historical  Sketch.  The  Evangelical  LutJieran  Church  in 
the  United  States  is  a  descendant  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
of  the  sixteenth  century — the  first  churcli  of  tlie  Rofoniui- 
tion.  It  takes  its  name  of  Lutheran  from  the  great  founder 
and  apostle  of  l*rotestantism,  and  seems  to  have  been  called 
''Evangelical"  to  distinguish  it  from  the  Reformed  or  Cal- 
vinistic  Lutherans.  In  the  United  States  there  are  several 
families  of  this  Lutheran  Church — the  Dutch  Lutherans,  the 
Swedish  Lutherans,  and  the  German  Lutherans.  Tlie 
organic  or  fundamental  creed  of  these  various  branches  of 
the  Lutheran  Church  is  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Wehmer 
V  l^"'okeiiga,  57  Neb.  .51(1. 

Division  of  Society,  Effect  on  Property  Rights.  This  church, 
which  at  one  time  was  attached  to  the  Holston  Synod,  was 
afterward  divided  into  two  factions,  one  of  which  withdrew 
itself  from  the  Holston  Synod  and  attached  itself  to  the 
Missouri  Synod.  It  was  held  that  by  such  withdrawal  this 
faction  forfeited  its  interest  in  church  jjroperty  whicli  lia<l 
been  conveyed  to  it  to  be  held  and  occupied  so  long  as  the 
society  continued  subordinate  to  the  Holston  Synod.  Kodg- 
ers  v  Burnett,  108  Tenn.  17:'.. 


249 


FREE  BAPTIST  C  HURCH 

Creed,  2.50. 

Properly,  \vh(>ii  fnuisfcr  (o  n-KuIar  |{;i[>tisl  Clitircli  invalid,  2r)0. 

Creed.  Tlic  I'rcc  linplist  fjiitli  is  )>jiso<l  upon  the  doctrines 
of  Aviniiiius.  ;iii<l  is  sinlod  to  be:  "1.  ('oiiditionul  election 
and  i('pi(tl»;i(i<tii  in  opposition  to  al)S(diite  ])i(*destin:ilioii. 
2.  Universal  redemption,  or  that  the  atonement  was  made 
by  Christ  for  all  mankind,  thonjih  none  but  believers  can 
be  partakers  of  the  benetit.  M.  That  man  in  order  to  exerci.se 
true  faith  must  be  regenerated,  and  renewed  by  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  is  the  gift  of  God.  4.  That  the 
grace  which  confers  this  is  not  irresistible.  5.  That  men 
may  relapse  from  a  state  of  grace,  and  die  i5i  their  sins.'' 
Park  V  Chaplin.  00  Ta.  5,5. 

Property,  When  Transfer  to  Regular  Baptist  Church  In- 
valid. The  society  was  incorporated  as  a  Freewill  Bapti.st 
Church,  but  soon  afterward  the  articles  of  incorporation 
were  amended  bj'  changing  the  name  to  the  Free  Baptist 
Church.  It  was  at  that  time  connected  with  the  quarterly 
meeting  of  that  denomination.  A  resolution  was  ado])ted 
by  the  congregation  to  join  the  regular  Baptist  denomina- 
tion, and  steps  were  taken  for  such  union.  About  the  time 
of  its  incor]>oration  the  society  had  received  a  conveyance 
of  land  on  which  to  erect  a  house  of  wor.ship  for  the  ditYu- 
sion  of  the  gospel,  according  to  the  faith  and  practice  of  the 
Freewill  Ba]»tist  denomination.  It  was  said  by  the  court 
tliat  the  religious  belief  and  the  articles  of  faith  of  the 
Baptist  Church  or  denomination  were  radically  different 
from  those  of  the  Free  Baptist  Church,  and  each  had  a 
separate  and  distinct  organization,  and  was  governed  by  its 
own  officers,  laws,  and  rules.  It  was  hehl  that  the  property 
was  acquired  for  the  benefit  of  the  Free  Baptist  Church, 

250 


FREE  BAIT  I  ST  CHURCH  lT.I 

and  that  such  i)r()i)erty  coiiM  not  he  translVncd  to  the 
Baptist  denomination  against  the  protest  of  nieinheis  of  ihe 
local  society.  Such  members  who  still  adhered  to  the  Free 
Baptist  faith  had  a  right  to  protect  the  property  and  ob- 
tain an  injunction  against  its  transfer.  The  religious  so- 
ciety as  such  could  dissolve  its  rehitions  with  the  Free  P>:i]»- 
tist  denomination  ;iiid  join  the  B;iptist,  but  the  society  could 
not  take  with  it  the  i)roi)erty  accpiired  by  a  civil  corj)or;itioii 
directly  coniiecled  with  the  Free  Bajdist  ("liurcli.  I*;irk  v 
Chaplin,  i)G  la.  55, 


FREE  CHURCH  OF  SCOTLAND 

Organiziition,  252. 

Diversion  of  i)roprrty,  252. 

Minority's  rip;ht,  253. 

Union  did  not  afT(H't  fnMMlom  of  private  opinion,  2.54. 

Organization.  'J'lic  Free  Clinrdi  <»!'  Scothiiid  \v;is  foiiiicd 
in  the  year  184)]  by  wliat  is  called  "the  (lisi'ni)1i<)ii,"  or,  in 
other  words,  the  secession  from  the  I>stal)lislied  Chnrcli  of 
iScotlaud  of  a  larjije  body  of  the  ministers  of  the  JOstablished 
Church,  who  renounced  entirely  the  pecuniary  benefits  of 
their  conned  ion  with  Die  estaldisliment  in  amendments  of 
a  protest  which  they  had  made  against  the  interference  by 
the  civil  courts  with  rights  wiiich  they  considered  to  be  the 
rights  of  the  duirch.  It  was  the  feature  of  the  Free  Church 
(prior  to  the  Union)  which  distinguished  it  from  all  other 
I'resbyterian  churches  in  Scotland,  that  it  was  the  only 
I'resbyterian  Church  not  connected  with  the  state  which 
professed  to  hold  the  establishment  principle.  General  As- 
sembly of  Free  Church  of  Scotland  v  Overtoun  (1901),  Law 
Reports.  A])peal  Cases  (Eng.)  515. 

Diversion  of  Property.  In  1000  acts  of  assembly  were 
passed  by  the  majority  of  the  Free  Church,  and  unanimously 
by  the  Ignited  Presbyterian  Church,  for  union,  under  the 
name  of  tlie  United  Free  Church,  and  the  Free  Church  prop- 
erty w^as  conveyed  to  the  new  trustees  for  behoof  of  the  new 
church.  The  res])on dents  contended  that  the  Free  Church 
had  full  power  to  change  its  doctrine  as  long  as  its  identity 
w-as  preserved.  The  appellants,  a  very  small  minority  of 
the  Free  Church,  objected  to  the  union,  maintaining  that 
the  Free  Church  had  no  power  to  change  its  original  doc- 
trines, or  to  unite  with  a  body  which  did  not  confess  those 
doctrines,  and  they  coni]dained  of  a  breach  of  trust,  inas- 
much as  the  property  of  the  Free  Church  was  no  longer 

252 


FKKK  CHURCH  OF  SCOTLAND  25:^ 

used  lor  behoof  of  that  church.  They  brought  this  actiou  iu 
tlie  uame  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Free  Church,  ask- 
ing, substantially,  that  they,  as  representing  the  Free 
Church,  be  declared  entitled  to  the  property. 

It  was  held  that  the  establishment  ijrinciple  and  the 
Westminster  Confession  were  distinctive  tenets  of  the  Free 
Church  ;  that  the  Free  Church  had  no  power,  wliere  i)roperty 
was  concerned,  to  alter  or  vai*y  the  doctrine  of  the  church; 
that  there  was  no  true  union,  as  the  United  Free  Churcli 
had  not  preserved  its  identity  with  the  Free  Church,  not 
having  the  same  distinctive  tenets;  and  that  the  appellants 
were  entitle<l  to  hold  for  behoof  of  the  Free  Church,  the 
jiroperty  held  by  the  Free  Church  before  the  Union  in  1!)00. 
(leneral  Assembly,  Free  Church  of  Scotland  v  Overtoun. 
Law  Rep.  App.  (1!)0?.)  cas.  (Eng.)  515. 

Minority's  Right.  The  owner  of  land  made  a  contract  with 
certain  persons,  members  of  tlie  Presbyterian  Church,  in 
connection  with  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  for  the  sale 
and  conveyance  of  a  piece  of  land  for  a  site  of  a  burial 
ground,  and  a  church  in  connection  with  the  Free  Church  of 
Scotland — in  case  a  congregation  of  that  church  wouhl  be 
assembled  together;  the  i)arties  entered  upon  the  land  and 
erected  a  church  in  which  such  a  congregation  did  assemble 
for  divine  worshi]).  Several  years  afterward  the  great  body 
of  the  congregation  ceased  to  be  in  connection  with  the  Free 
Church,  and  they,  iu  concert  with  the  vendor,  sought  to  hold 
possession  of  the  chni-ch  and  land  to  the  exclusion  of  such 
of  the  members  as  still  adhered  to  the  Free  Church.  It  was 
held  that  so  long  as  any  one  remained  to  claim  the  site  and 
church  on  behalf  of  the  Free  Church  the  right  of  the  latter 
body  continued,  notwithstanding  the  change  of  opinion  in 
the  body  of  the  members.  No  other  denomination  had  a 
right  to  take  jxissession  of  the  church  and  insist  on  holding 
ajid  using  it;  and  an  injunction  was  granted  restraining 
such  attempted  possession  and  use,  as  against  the  minority 
who  still  adhered  t<)  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland.  .Vttoiiiey- 
Gcneral  v  Ciiristie,  \'.\  Grant's  Ch.  (Can.)   4!t5. 


254        'riii-:  ('i\ii.  LAW  AM)  Tin:  ciukcii 

Union  Did  Not  Affect  Freedom  of  Private  Opinion.  'IMiis 
oi'jiniiiznl  ioii  \\;is  rurMiicd  in  l*.)(M(  l»\  .1  iinioii  (-(Miiitoscd  (tf  a 
•jrcal  iii;i  joi-il  y  of  llic  iiiinistcrs  :iii<l  elders  ol"  tlio  I*'ree  Clninli 
of  Scotland  with  the  ministers  and  elders  of  tiie  rnite(l 
ri'esl)ytei-i;in  Clini-cli  of  Scotland.  Tlie  act  of  nnion  left 
ministers  and  lavnien  free  to  hold  opinions  as  rejiiirds  the 
estjihlishment  j>rineii)le,  and  the  pi'edestinat ion  doctrine  in 
the  Westminster  Confession  as  they  pleased.  General  As- 
seml»ly.  Free  riinrch  of  Scotljind  v  Overtoun  (190-1),  Law 
Kep.  Apj).  Cas.  (lOng.j  515. 


FRIENDS 

History,  255. 

Three  groups,  25G. 

Described,  257. 

Business,  how  transacted,  260. 

Creed,  201. 

Ohio  Yearly  AIecliii{^,  2l'.l. 

riiiUulelpliia  Yearly  Meelinf!;,  262. 

J'repMrative  Meeting,  only  one  regular,  264. 

Affirmation,  265. 

Division  of  society,  eiTect,  presiding  officer,  265. 

Exemption  from  mihtary  duty,  266. 

Meetings,  266. 

Ofhce,  when  not  bound  to  accept,  266. 

Title,  not  forfeited  by  removal  of  building,  267. 

Unincorporated,  may  take  by  will,  267. 

History.  Tlie  distiiu-tive  doctrines  of  Quakerism  were  first 
taught  in  ICngland  shortly  after  the  middle  of  the  seven- 
teenth century.  The  earliest  meetings  of  tliis  sect  of  Chris- 
tians were  no  doubt  for  the  purpose  of  worship  only,  and  it 
was  not  until  the  year  1(>S2  that  the  Society  of  Friends  was 
fully  organized  for  the  purpose  of  discipline  or  church  gov- 
ernment. In  that  year  a  form  of  ecclesiastical  government 
\\as  matured  and  adopted.  The  system  tlien  adopted,  whidi 
has  been  continued  ever  since,  embraced  four  grades  of 
church  judicatories,  called  meetings,  namely,  the  Prepar- 
alive,  the  Monthly,  the  Quarterly,  and  the  Yearly.  These 
were  connected  and  subordinated  in  the  order  named — the 
pT'e])arative  to  the  monthly,  the  monthly  to  the  (piarterly, 
the  cpiartei'ly  to  the  yt'arly.  The  London  Yearly  Meeting. 
the  only  yearly  meeting  at  that  time  e.stablished.  was  in 
vested  with  ])aramonnt  and  final  jurisdiction  over  all  the 
subordinate  meetings  of  the  society.  The  jurisdiction  of 
the  Yearly  Meeting  was  both  api)ellate  and  advisory.  Ap- 
peals  from    the  decisions   of   the   (>uarterly   Meetings   were 

255 


2r)(;        Till':  cinil  law  am*  iiii;  <"ii(i:rij 

t'literdiiiMMJ  l»_v  I  lie  ^'(';l^ly  Mfcliiij;.  lOacli  (Quarterly  Meet- 
ing was  invested  with  like  jurisdiction  over  all  the  Monthly 
Meelin;;s  witliin  its  jn'escribed  tej-ii torial  limits,  and  each 
Montliiy  .Meeting;  with  like  jurisdiction  over  Preparative 
Meetings  within  its  territory, 

riuler  this  system  a  Prejjarative  Electing  (aunot  be  "set 
up"  or  "laid  down"  within  the  bounds  ol"  a  Monthly  Meet- 
ing without  the  consent  of  the  Monthly;  a  Monthly  Meeting 
without  tlie  consent  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting  to  which  it  is 
accountable,  or  a  quarterly-  without  the  consent  of  the 
Yearly  Meeting.  All  meetings  for  worship  are  promiscu- 
ous, being  comi)osed  of  members  of  the  society  without 
regard  to  sex,  and  open  to  all  i)ersons  who  may  desire  ad- 
mission. In  the  scheme  of  Quaker  government  no  superior 
judicatory  has  been  organized  for  the  exercise  of  discipline 
over  its  Yearly  Meetings.    Harrison  v  Hoyle,  24  Ohio  254. 

Three  Groups.  Those  known  by  the  general  name  of 
Friends,  and  residing  upon  the  American  continent,  are 
divided  into  three  i)rincipal  groups  of  Yearly  Meetings.  The 
first  of  these  groui)S  comprises  all  of  the  Y'early  Meetings, 
which  are  in  correspondence  and  in  regular  fraternal  rela- 
tions with  the  London  Y'^early  Meeting,  and  to  which  we 
have  already  referred.  Of  this  group  the  New  England, 
formerly  known  as  the  Rhode  Island,  Yearly  Meeting  is  the 
oldest  American  Yearly  Meeting.  The  second  embraces 
those  Y^'early  Meetings  which  have  their  origin  in  a  division 
of  the  society  of  Friends,  commencing  in  the  year  1827,  in 
which  Elias  Hicks,  a  minister  of  the  society,  bore  a  promi- 
nent part.  Those  constituting  these  meetings  are  known  in 
common  parlance  by  the  distinguishing  name  of  Hicksite 
Quakers.  The  third  is  compo.sed  of  a  class  of  Yearly  Meet- 
ings which,  in  the  matter  of  their  immediate  organizations, 
are  of  a  still  more  recent  date.  Those  uniting  with  this  class 
of  Yearly  Meetings,  as  between  tliemselves  and  others  claim- 
ing to  be  Quakers,  prefer  to  be  knowTi  as  orthodox  Friends. 

These  Yearly  Meetings  base  their  claims  to  regularity  in 
their  organizations   upon    their   avowed   adherence   to   the 


FRIENDS  -27)1 

ancient  i)rincii)les  of  Quakerism,  ami  upon  the  orthodoxy  of 
their  sentiments  as  Quakers  on  the  general  subject  of 
religion.  The  position  of  the  I'hiladelpliia  Yearly  Meeting 
is  somewhat  anomalous.  It  is  next  to  the  oldest,  and,  in 
some  res])ects,  has  been,  and  i)erhaps  continues  to  be,  one  of 
tlie  most  influential  Yearly  Meetings  on  this  continent, 
and  on  terms  of  courtesy  and  friendship  with  many  other 
Yearly  Meetings;  yet,  owing  to  some  internal  dilliculties  and 
disagreements  as  to  what  relations  it  ought  to  sustain  to 
certain  other  bodies  claiming  to  be  Yearly'  Meetings,  it  has 
ceased  to  have  regular  correspondence  with  any  otlier  Yearly 
Meeting.  We,  consequently,  find  it  difficult,  if  not  imprac- 
ticable, to  classify  it  with  any  one  of  the  groups  of  Yearly 
Meetings  to  whicli  we  have  referred.  White  Lick  Quart. 
Meet,  of  Friends  v  White  Lick  Quart,  etc.,  89  Ind.  13G. 

Described.  The  society  consists  of  a  series  of  what  are 
termed  meetings — the  word  being  used  not  only  to  desig- 
nate assemblies  of  the  people  for  worship,  but  also  the 
jurisdiction  and  authority  of  these  bodies.  The  lowest  of 
these  in  order,  which  are  called  l*articular  Meetings,  are 
local  assend)lies  for  the  purpose  of  worship  only.  Some- 
times several  of  tliese  exist  in  a  single  town.  They  are  sim- 
ilar to  what  some  other  sects  call  congregations.  Next  in 
order  are  Preparative  Meetings.  These  consist  of  the  mem- 
bers of  one  or  more  particular  meetings.  They  assemble  for 
worship,  a)id  also  for  the  transaction  of  business  to  a  limited 
extent.  They  usually  include  more  than  one  Particular 
Meeting.  Next  above  these  are  Monthly  ]\[eotings.  They 
consist  of  as  many  Preparative  Meetings  as  may  be  conven- 
ient and  assendde  monthl3^  From  among  the  members  of 
each  Preparative  Meeting  belonging  to  them,  they  annually 
elect  two  or  more  males  and  two  or  more  females  as  over- 
seers. These  overseers  superintend  the  discipline  and  man- 
age the  funds  and  business  of  the  ^Monthly  ^Meetings;  and 
the  mend)ers  which  belong  to  each  ]>r('])aratlve  meeting 
superintend  its  discijtlinc  and  inaiiage  ils  iiiiids  and  busi- 
ness. 


258  TlllO  ('l\  11.   LAW  AM)  Till:  CIUKCII 

Ii_v  llio  ]\r;issa(lnis('tts  ad  of  Isi'ii  coiporate  J)ow(;i'h  were 
coiifcncMl  iijioii  llicsc  bodies,  aii<l  tlicv  liavo  ever  since  been 
intrusted  willi  corporale  jtowcrs  1o  take  and  bold  projjerty 
in  succession.  Tlie  Montlily  ^Meeting  is  snl)oi'dinate  to  a 
Quarterly  Meeting?,  Avliicb  is  conijiosed  of  as  many  Montbly 
Meetings  as  may  be  tbougbt  fit  to  constitute  the  same;  and 
eacli  of  the  Monthly  Meetings  elects  delegates  to  it.  It 
meets  (juarterly.  Over  all  these  meetings  is  a  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, which  includes  within  its  jurisdiction  all  the  meetings 
of  the  denomination  of  Friends  in  New  ]*]ngland,  except  those 
in  A'ermont.  It  meets  annually,  in  the  sixth  month,  in 
Rhode  Island,  and  each  Quarterly  Meeting  elects  delegates 
toit.    Dexter  v  Gardner,  7  Allen  (Mass.)  243. 

Besides  the  delegates  and  re]>resenta fives,  the  members  of 
the  society  generally  are  entitled  to  attend  all  the  meet- 
ings and  to  participate  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  in  their 
proceedings.  The  greater  part  of  the  merely  disciplinary 
and  administrative  business  of  the  society  is  transacted  at 
the  Monthly  Meetings,  but  their  proceedings  nmy  be  reviewed 
by  the  Quarterly  Meetings  and  appeals  may  be  sHU  further 
taken  to  the  Yearly  Meetings.  Each  Y'early  Meeting  has  a 
final  and  controlling  jurisdiction  in  all  matters  of  faith, 
religious  duty,  administration,  and  discipline  within  its 
territorial  limits,  and  is  regarded  as  a  coordinate  sui)reme 
judicatory  with  other  Yearly  Meetings,  all  constituting  the 
ecclesiastical  system  known  as  the  Society  of  Friends. 

This  general  plan  of  organization  is  adhered  to  by  all 
classes  of  English-speaking  peo])le  claiming  to  be  Friends, 
but  more  genor;illy  known  as  Quakers.  Instead  of  general 
conventions,  general  conferences,  or  other  general  assem- 
blages of  some  kind,  as  is  provided  for  in  most  other  reli- 
gious organizations,  the  society  of  Friends  has  adopted  a 
system  of  correspondence  and  fraternal  communication  be- 
tween its  Y'early  Meetings  in  unity  and  general  accord  with 
each  other,  which  is  carried  on  by  means  of  epistles,  liberat- 
ing certificates,  visits,  interchanges  of  ministers,  and  general 
letters   of  recommendation.     Bv  this  system   of  intercom- 


FRIENDS  259 

nuinication  each  Yearly  Meeting  receives  information  from 
time  to  time  as  to  the  general  condition  of  all  the  other 
Yearly  Meetings  with  which  it  is  in  correspondence,  and 
is  afforded  an  opportnnity  of  consulting  such  other  Yearly 
Meetings  in  all  affairs  of  serious  difficulty  or  of  grave  im- 
portance. 

In  matters  of  correspondence,  and  of  an  advisory  char- 
acter merely,  tie  Yearly  Meeting  of  England,  which  as- 
sembles at  London,  and  which  was  organized  and  established 
more  than  two  hundred  years  ago,  has  usually  had  accorded 
to  it  that  kind  of  precedence  which  is  quite  frequently,  if  not 
usually,  conceded  to  the  oldest  member  of  a  family,  and 
correspondence  with,  and  consequent  recognition  by,  that 
Y^'early  Meeting  has  been  regarded  by  most,  if  not  all,  the 
Yearly  Meetings  on  this  continent,  as  a  matter  of  consider- 
able, if  not  of  very  great  importance. 

In  the  peculiar  phraseology  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  a 
meeting  is  said  to  have  been  "set  up"  when  it  has  been  organ- 
ized according  to  the  usages  of  the  society,  and  to  have  been 
"laid  down"  when  it  has  been  formally  dissolved. 

A  new  Y''early  Meeting  is  set  up  by  some  contiguous  or 
convenient  Yearly  Meeting,  but  only  with  the  consent  of  nil 
the  Yearh'  Meetings  willi  wliich  such  contiguous  or  conven- 
ient Yearly  Meeting  is  in  unity  and  fellowship. 

When  a  new  Yearly  Meeting  is  set  up  it  acquires  juris- 
diction over  all  subordinate  meetings  already  establislu'd 
within  its  territory.  Quarterly  Meetings  are  set  up  by  the 
j)roper  Yearly  Meetiiig;  Monthly  Meetings  are  set  uj)  by  the 
(Quarterly  Meetings,  and  the  Preparative  Meetings  are  set 
up  by  the  Monthly  Meetings. 

The  clerk  of  the  meeting  is  in  a  qualified  but,  neverthe- 
less, in  a  general  sense,  its  ])resi(ling  ollirer,  as  well  as  the 
recorder  of  its  proceedings,  and  during  his  term  in  office  he 
stands  at  the  head  of  the  organization  which  const itules  the 
nieeling.  The  meeting  itself  is  frecpiently  contradistin- 
guished from  others  ])y  a  rcrcreiice  lo  liiiii  as  its  cliMk. 
\VIien,  therefoi-e,  a   clcik  lias  been   icgiilarly  apjHiinted   liie 


'2m        Tin:  ("I\il  law  and  'riii':  ciiikcii 

iiieelinj;  is  fully  or^iinizcd  and  ready  to  proceed  with  itH 
business.  White  Lick  Quart.  Meet,  of  Friends  v  White 
Lick  (^uarl.  :Meet.  of  Friends,  SO  I  ml.  Ul.'t. 

Business,  How  Transacted.  One  of  tlie  peculiar  and  distin- 
guishing characteristics  of  this  people  consists  in  their 
mode  of  transacting  business  and  arriving  at  conclusions,  in 
which,  rejecting  totally  the  i)rinciple  that  a  majority  as 
such  is  to  rule  or  decide,  or  govern,  they  arrive  at  a  unity 
of  resolution  and  action,  in  a  mode  i)eculiar  to  themselves, 
and  entirely  different  from  that  connnon  to  all  civil  or  polit- 
ical, and  to  most  ecclesiastical  bodies.  They  look  and  wait 
for  a  union  of  mind;  and  the  result  is  produced  not  by  a 
vote  or  count  of  numbers,  but  by  a  yielding  up  of  opinions, 
a  deference  for  the  judgment  of  each  other,  and  an  acquies- 
cence or  submission  to  the  measure  proposed.  Where  a  divi- 
sion of  sentiment  occurs  the  matter  is  postponed  for  further 
consideration,  or  withdrawn,  or  dismissed  entirely';  or,  after 
sometimes  temperate  discussion  and  sometimes  silent  delib- 
eration, those  who  support,  or  those  who  oppose  a  measure, 
acquiesce  in  the  sense  of  the  meeting  as  collected  and 
minuted  bj'^  the  clerk;  and  they  believe  the  "spirit  of  truth" 
w^hen  the  meeting  is  "rightly  gathered"  will  be  transfused 
through  their  minds,  and  they  will  be  guided  and  intiuenced 
by  a  wisdom  and  judgment  better  than  their  owti,  and  that 
their  clerk  will  be  led  to  act  under  the  overshadowing  of 
that  power,  which  is  not  at  his  command,  which  will  enable 
him  to  make  proper  decisions. 

Quoting  from  Clarkson's  Portraiture  of  Quakerism,  the 
court  said :  "When  a  subject  is  brought  before  them  it  is 
canvassed  to  the  exclusion  of  all  extraneous  matter,  until 
some  conclusion  results ;  the  clerk  of  the  meeting  then  draws 
up  a  minute,  containing,  as  nearly  as  he  can  collect,  the 
substance  of  this  conclusion ;  this  minute  is  then  read  aloud 
to  the  auditory,  and  either  stands  or  undergoes  an  altera- 
tion, as  appears  by  the  silence  or  discussion  upon  it,  to  be 
the  sense  of  the  meeting;  when  fully  agreed  upon  it  stands 
ready  to  be  recorded." 


FRIENDS  2G1 

The  coustitution  of  this  society  neither  recognizes  nor 
makes  provision  for  a  vote  or  a  decision  on  the  principle  of 
numbers  in  any  instance  or  prediciiiiient.  Hendrickson  v 
Shotwell,  1  N.  J,  Eq.  577;  see  also  Hendrickson  v  Decow, 
1  Saxton  (N.  J.)  577. 

Creed.  Although  the  Society  of  Friends  have  seldom  made 
use  of  the  word  trinity,  yet  they  believe  in  the  existence  of 
the  Father,  the  Son,  or  Word,  and  the  Holy  Spirit ;  that  the 
Son  was  God,  and  became  flesh  ;  that  there  is  one  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  all  thinj^s  were  made,  who  was  •glori- 
fied with  the  Father  before  the  world  began,  who  is  God  over 
all,  blessed  for  ever,  that  there  is  one  Holy  Spirit,  tlie 
promise  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  the  leader,  and  sancti- 
fier,  and  comforter  of  his  people,  and  that  these  three  are 
one,  the  Father,  the  Word  and  the  Spirit.  They  also 
believe  in  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement;  that  the  divine 
and  human  nature  of  Jesus  Christ  were  united;  that  thus 
united,  he  suffered,  and  that  through  his  sufl'eriTigs,  death, 
and  resurrection  he  atoned  for  the  sins  of  men.  They  also 
believe  that  the  Scriptures  were  given  by  inspiration,  and 
when  rightly  interjyreted  are  unerring  guides.  They  believe 
that  the  Spirit  still  operates  upon  the  souls  of  men,  and 
when  it  does  really  and  truly  so  operate  it  furnishes  the 
primary  rule  of  faith.  Hendrickson  v  Decow,  1  Sax,  (X.  J.) 
577. 

Ohio  Yearly  Meeting.  In  1S32  land  in  Jefferson  County, 
Ohio,  was  conveye<l  to  trustees  for  the  use  of  the  Ohio  Yearly 
Meeting  of  the  Society  of  Friends.  The  property  A\as 
intended  for  a  boarding  school  and  suitable  buildings  were 
soon  afterward  ei'cctcd,  and  a  school  was  maintnincd  there. 

The  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  was  unincorporated,  but  exer- 
cised supervision  over  aflfairs  relating  to  the  Society  of 
Friends  in  Ohio.  In  1854  a  division  occuimhmI  in  the  Ohio 
Yearly  Meeting,  resulting  in  the  organization  of  two  soci- 
eties under  the  same  name,  each  claiming  to  be  the  Ohio 
Yearly  Meeting  entitled  to  the  trust  property  destiihed  in 
said  conveyance. 


2(52  Tin-:  (M\IL   LAW    A  N  h  Till-:  CIUHCII 

Tlic  (Miio  ^^';lI•ly  Mccliiij^  w;is  estnblisluMl  in  llic  i'c^iil;ir 
onlci-  of  IIm'  Society  <A'  I-'i-iciidH  in  1812,  The  territory  ]iI;i<(m1 
uikIci-  its  care  had  roniici-Iy  hccii  within  tlic  jurisdiclioii  of 
llic  IJaltini()i-(>  Yearly  Mectinj^. 

Tlu'  division  in  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  of  1854  was 
apiKircnfly  the  ivsult  <d"  a  division  which  liad  i)reviously 
occurred  in  New  lOiigland  Yearly  Meeting.  Out  of  this  dis- 
sension there  were  formed  in  1845  two  New  England  Y'early 
Meetings.  There  were  two  i>arties  in  the  Ohio  Yearly  Meet- 
ing respectively  synii)athizing  with  the  larger  and  siiiall 
party  in  the  New  P^ngland  division.  The  controversy  in 
1854  grew  out  of  the  election  of  a  clerk,  resulting  in  the 
declaration  of  election  of  two  clerks  by  opi>osing  factions. 
After  this  division  each  party  met  in  a  separate  meeting. 
One  of  those  meetings  was  known  as  the  Binn's  Meeting, 
and  the  other  as  the  Hoyle  Meeting.  The  Binn's  party 
maintained  the  history,  traditions,  and  customs  of  the 
Yearly  Meeting  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  while  the  Hoyle 
party  was,  so  far  as  practicable,  excluded  from  associa- 
tion with  the  other  party. 

The  court  held  that  the  Binn's  party  was  entitled  to  be 
considered  the  true  Y'early  Meeting,  and  that  the  Hoyle 
party  had  not  conformed  to  the  rules  of  the  societj'  in 
attempting  the  election  of  a  clerk  and  assistant  in  the 
manner  pointed  out  in  the  opinion.  It  appeared  that  nearly 
all  other  Y'early  Meetings  of  Friends  in  this  country  recog- 
nized the  validity  of  the  Binn's  election  and  the  status  of 
the  Binn's  party.  This  was  deemed  of  great  weight  by  the 
court  in  determining  the  question  as  between  the  Binn's  and 
the  Hoyle  factions.  The  Binn's  party  was  held  entitled  to 
the  property  conveyed  to  the  Ohio  Y'early  Meeting  in  1832. 
Harrison  v  Hoyle,  24  Ohio  254. 

Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting.  In  the  latter  part  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  and  at  a  verj'  early  period  in  the  prog- 
ress of  the  settlement  of  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania,  the 
number  and  condition  of  the  followers  of  Creorge  Fox.  or 
the  people  called  (Quakers,  rendered  it  desirable  they  should 


FRIENDS  203 

be  brought  under  a  comiiiou  liead,  aLcording  to  the  loriii  of 
ecclesiastical  government  adopted  in  England,  and  already 
existing  in  some  of  the  more  ancient  colonies.  In  the  year 
KiSl  or  1()S5  (the  precise  time  seems  to  be  controverted)  a 
Yearly  Meeting  was  established,  comprehending  the  prov- 
inces of  New  .Jersey  and  Pennsylvania,  an<l  tlie  nuMnbers  of 
1ha(:  religions  society  and  their  already  organized  nuviiiigs 
and  judicatories  of  inferior  grades.  This  body  was  not  a 
mere  incidental,  casual,  disconnected  assemblage,  (onvening 
without  ju-evions  arrangement,  ceasing  1o  exist  when  its 
members  separated,  and  formed  anew  when  individuals 
came  together  again  at  some  subseijncnl  time.  It  was  a 
i-egularly  organized  and  established  body,  holding  stated 
sessions,  corresponding  with  other  bodies  of  the  same  reli- 
gious denomination,  consulting  together  for  the  welfare 
of  a  portion  of  their  church  and  its  members,  the  ultimate 
arbiter  of  all  differences,  and  the  common  head  and  governor 
of  all  belonging  to  the  Society  of  Friends,  within  its  juris- 
diction, which  extended  over  the  territories  just  mentioned, 
while  they  were  called  provinces,  and  since  thej^  assumed 
the  name  and  rank  of  States.  The  meetings  of  this  body 
were  held  annually,  as  its  name  imports,  and  as  long  and 
steady  usage  has  wrought  into  a  part  of  its  essential  strur- 
ture.  The  time  and  place,  however,  when  and  where  only 
the  body  can  constitutionally  assemble  and  act,  must  when 
fixed,  so  remain,  until  "the  voice  of  the  body,"  "in  a  Yearly 
Meeting  cajtacity,"  which  alone  has  the  power  and  right 
"to  govern  its  own  proceedings,"  shall  resolve  on  and  enact  a 
change.  From  the  year  1085,  for  nearly  a  century  an«l  a 
half,  this  body  held  its  ])eri()dical  sessions;  for  years,  alliT- 
nately  at  Burlington  and  Philadeli)hia,  and  finally  in  the 
latter  city  alone;  and  there,  successively,  at  fheii'  houses  on 
JMue  Street,  on  Keyes'  Alley,  and  on  Arch  Street  ;  in  the 
year  1820,  at  the  prescribed  time  and  place,  a  nicciing  was 
held.  After  the  transaction  of  its  business  il  adjourned, 
according  to  the  ancient  ami  wonted  form,  "to  mecl  in  the 
next  year  at  the  usual  time."    This  body,  Ihns  convened  and 


2(51  Tlii:  <"l\  Ih   LAW  ANh  Till:  CHrKCH 

lliiis  iidjounuMl,  WAS,  without  dispute,  the  I'hiludelphiu 
Yearly  ISIeetin^^  «»f  Friends.  Ileiidrickson  v  Decow,  1  Kax. 
(N.  J.)  r>77. 

This  was  declared  to  he  a  hody  jjolitic  or  coiporate  hy 
prescription,  and  its  right  of  taking  and  enjoying  i)roperty 
could  not  be  impaired  hy  inipiiry  into  the  sejjarate  capacity 
of  its  component  members.  Magill  v  Brown,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
952  (U.  S.  Cir.  Ct.,  I»a.)  Brightly  N.  P.  347. 

Preparative  Meeting,  Only  One  Regular,  For  some  time 
I)rior  to  1827  there  was  a  i)reparative  meeting  at  Chester- 
lield,  New  Jersey.  In  December,  1827,  there  was  a  separa- 
tion among  the  members  of  this  meeting,  and  two  meetings 
were  formed,  each  calling  itself  the  Chesterfield  I'reparative 
Meeting.  One  of  the  meetings  elected  a  treasurer  of  certain 
school  funds,  and  the  other  continued  the  former  treasurer 
in  office.  Each  of  these  Preparative  Meetings  was  con- 
nected with  one  of  two  Yearly  Meetings  in  I'hiladelphia. 
But  while  there  were  two  meetings  claiming  to  be  the  true 
Yearly  Meeting,  it  was  conceded  that  by  the  law  of  the 
societj*  there  could  be  only  one  true  Y'early  Meeting  in 
IMiiladelidiia. 

It  was  held  that  there  could  be  only  one  Preparative 
Meeting  at  Chestertield,  which  must  be  connected  with  one 
Yearly  Meeting  in  Pliiladelphia.  It  was  also  held  that  the 
separation  in  1827,  by  which  the  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meet- 
ing was  divided,  a  minoritj^  organizing  another  I'early 
Meeting,  did  not  have  the  effect  to  change  the  status  of 
the  original  society,  which  Avas  continued  by  the  election  of 
officers,  and  the  transaction  of  general  business;  and  this 
Y'early  Meeting  was  held  to  be  the  true  Yearly  Meeting. 
The  Chesterfield  Pre|)arative  Meeting,  which  continued  in 
office  the  former  treasurer,  was  held  to  be  the  regular  I*re- 
parative  Meeting,  duly  connected  with  the  Philadelphia 
Yearly  Meeting,  and  that  this  treasurer  was  entitled  to 
recover  the  amount  due  on  a  mortgage  given  to  him  for  the 
loan  of  money  belonging  to  the  school  fund.  Hendrickson  v 
Shotwell,  1  N.  J.  Eq.  577. 


FRIENDS  265 

Affirmation.  In  Rex  v  Mayor  of  Lincoln,  5  Mod.  (Eug.) 
400,  a  Quaker  was  admitted  to  the  freedom  of  the  City  of 
Lincoln  on  his  aflirmatiou. 

In  Ex  Parte  CUuubleton,  2  Atk.  (Eng.)  70  Lord  Chancellor 
Hardwicke  held  that  under  the  act  of  7  and  8  W.  'S,  a  Quaker 
could  not  by  affirmation  without  oath  present  articles  of 
the  peace  against  her  husband,  and  it  was  suggested  that 
the  woman,  "as  she  goes  in  danger  of  her  life,"  might 
overcome  her  scruples  and  take  the  required  oath. 

A  Quaker's  testimony  on  his  affirmation  is  admissible  in 
an  action  on  debt  on  statute,  2  Geo.  2,  c.  24,  against 
bribery.    Atcheson  v  Everitt,  1  Cowper  (Eng.)  382. 

Quakers  may  serve  as  grand  jurors  aiul  tlie  affirmation 
administered  to  them  is  equivalent  to  the  oath  to  be  admin- 
istered to  other  persons.  Commonwealth  v  Smith,  9  Mass. 
107. 

Division  of  Society,  Effect,  Presiding  Officer.  Members  of  a 
Society  of  Friends  formed  an  association  known  as  the 
"Purchase  Preparative  Meeting,"  to  whom  belonged  a  school 
fund  of  about  .f800  in  cash,  raised  by  contribution,  and  loO 
acres  of  land  devised  by  an  Individual.  In  1828  a  separa- 
tion took  place  in  the  Societj'^  of  Friends,  at  their  Yearly 
Meeting  in  the  city  of  New  York,  about  250  i)ersons  out  of 
an  assemblage  of  1,200  withdrawing  from  the  Friends  Meet- 
ing house  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  organizing  a  se])arate 
Yearly  Meeting;  the  section  withdrawing  was  called  the 
Orthodox,  and  those  remaining  the  Hicksites.  Under  the 
rules  of  the  society  the  clerk  of  the  nteeting  is  its  ju-esiding 
officer,  and  the  meeting  is  not  deemed  organized  until  he  is 
in  his  place.  At  a  meeting  held  in  1828  the  Hicksites  were  a 
large  majority,  and  they  refused  to  ])ermit  the  clerk  to 
])reside,  for  tlie  reason  that  he  liad  joined  the  Oi'thodox 
party;  thereupon  the  clerk  and  several  mend)ers  withdrew 
and  held  a  meeting  in  anothei-  i)lace.  At  tliis  meeting  the 
Orthodox  Friends  were  direc-ted  to  sepai-ate  from  the  Hicks- 
ites. On  the  withdrawal  of  the  clerk,  as  aboNc  pointed  out, 
the    Hicksites    elected    anothei-    dei-U    ;in<l    Mlteiward    held 


im;<;        'riiio  cinii.  law  and  tiii:  cm  kcii 

i'('«j;iil;ir  iii«'«'liii;;s.  Tlic  Ilicksilcs  rctjiincd  possession  of  llu; 
nu'cl  iiij^lionscs  ;iim1  sclioolhonscs.  :iii(|  control  the  kcIiooIs 
iiinl  snitport  tliciii.  It  seems  lli;i1  hy  one  of  the  rules  of  the 
Society  of  Friends  quc!stions  ;it  ii  nieetinjjj  are  not  decided 
by  vote,  bnl^  hy  tlie  clerk,  who  j^iithers  as  best  lie  may  the 
opinions  of  the  members  present  and  decides  it  according  to 
his  jndjinient.  The  court  snstained  the  validity  of  tlie  meet- 
ing; held  by  the  exchxled  clerk,  notwithstanding  a  niajoi'ity 
of  the  persons  present  at  the  opening  of  the  meeting  re- 
mained, and  elected  another  clerk.  The  regular  clerk  could 
not  be  excluded  from  his  office,  nor  i)revented  from  exercis- 
ing his  functions  by  the  action  of  the  meeting.  He  was  its 
legal  head  under  the  rules  of  the  society,  and  authorized  to 
act  as  its  presiding  officer.  The  idaintiff  as  treasurer  of  the 
Purchase  Preparative  Meeting  in  1817,  having  loaned  to  the 
defendant  a  part  of  the  fund  on  his  promissory  note,  was  held 
entitled  to  recover  notwithstanding  a  subsequent  division 
of  the  society.  The  plaintiff  represented  the  original  so- 
ciety, and  the  title  to  the  fund  was  not  affected  by  the  seces- 
sion of  a  portion  of  its  members.  Field  v  Field,  9  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  394. 

Exemption  from  Military  Duty.  A  Quaker  who  claims  an 
exemi)tion  from  duty  in  the  militia  must  prove  that  he  is  a 
member  of  a  society  of  that  denomination,  and  that  he  fre- 
quently and  usually  attends  with  such  society  for  religious 
worship.    Commonwealth  v  Fletcher,  12  Mass.  441. 

Meetings.  The  meetings  in  the  Society  of  Friends  are  of 
two  kinds — for  worship  and  for  discipline,  as  they  are 
sometimes  called;  or,  in  other  words,  for  business.  ICvery 
meeting  for  discipline  is  in  truth  a  meeting  for  worshiji, 
since  he  cordially  and  faithfully  performs  any  ecclesiastical 
duty ;  does  thereby  pay  an  act  of  adoration  to  the  Almighty. 
The  meetings  for  business  are  four  in  number,  marked  and 
distinguished  by  ])eculiar  and  characteristic  differences — 
preparative,  monthly,  quarterly  and  yearly. 

Office,  When  not  Bound  to  Accept.  The  court  declined  to 
compel  a  Quaker  to  accejit  the  office  of  churchwarden  to 


FRIENDS  2<H 

which  he  had  been  elected  in  the  Established  Church.    Adey 

V  Theobald,  1  Cnrteis  ( Eng. )  ;>7:i 

Title,  Not  Forfeited  by  Removal  of  Building.  Property  con- 
veyed to  the  society  for  its  use  so  lon<.i'  as  it  was  needed 
for  meeting  purposes,  with  a  provision  that  it  should  revert 
when  no  longer  needed  for  such  j)uri)Oses,  was  not  forfeited 
by  the  removal  of  the  buildings  erected  by  the  society  on  the 
lot.    Such  a  removal  did  not  constitute  a  forfeiture.    Carter 

V  Branson  et  el,  79  Ind.  U. 

Unincorporated,  May  Take  by  Will.  In  Magi  11  v  Brown, 
Fed.  Cas.  S,  U'>'2  ( U.  S.  Cir.  Ct.,  Pa.)  (Brightly  N.  P.  :UT) 
Judge  Baldwin,  considering  the  provisions  of  a  will  making 
numerous  bequests  to  Societies  of  Friends  for  charitable 
purj)oses,  said:  *'It  is  not  conceivable  that  the  Quaker 
settlers  of  this  province  should  have  introduced  those  laws  of 
the  mother  country,  which  would  inca])acitate  them  as  indi- 
viduals, or  a  religious  society,  from  taking,  holding,  or  enjoy- 
ing property  as  a  matter  of  right  without  a  charter ;  or  expose 
to  a  forfeiture  to  the  projirietor,  or  mesne  landlord,  lands 
conveyed  to  them  for  the  purposes  of  sepulture,  religious  wor- 
shij),  or  charity,  and  above  all,  that  William  Penu  should 
have  adojtted  the  statutes  of  Henry  VIII  declaring  the 
celebration  of  divine  service  according  to  the  rites  of  the 
Catholic  Church  to  be  superstitious,  and  a  conveyance  for 
its  u.se  illegal  and  void  ;  and  the  statutes  of  mortmain  which 
make  the  enjoyment  of  jiroperty  by  a  religious  body  (h'ju-nd 
ent  on  the  pleasure  and  permission  of  the  lord  of  the  Ice. 
while  at  the  same  time  he  exchnles  the  Statute  of  4.">  ICli/a- 
beth,  and  the  mild  and  beneticenl  |>rinciples  of  the  coimnon 
law  which  that  statute  has  been  held  to  have  restored."  The 
history  of  the  Society  of  (Quakers  jtrcscnls  no  instance  of  an 
incorporation.  The  societies  of  l-'ricnds,  though  never  form- 
ally incorporated,  are  cai)able  under  the  constitnlion  and 
laws  of  Pennsylvania,  of  taking  jnopeiMy  l>y  devise  «>r  iKMpiest 
for  the  piir|»oses  of  theii-  organi/,at  ion.  Put  in  (Ji'cen  v 
Dennis,  (►  Conn.  I'lC!,  a  devise  to  :im  uninciHpdrated  (Quaker 
society  was  rejected. 


FRIENDSHIP  LIBERAL  LEAGUE 

Description,  268. 

Description.  Testator  gave  a  legacy  to  the  league  but  did 
not  specify  the  use  to  which  it  was  to  be  api)lied.  The  league 
was  organized  for  tlie  purpose  of  uniting  socially  for  the 
improvement  of  their  intellectual  and  moral  condition  by 
the  dissemination  of  scientific  truths  by  means  of  literature, 
music,  lectures,  and  debates.  It  did  not  claim  to  be  a  Chris- 
tian organization,  but  it  represented  nevertheless  the  belief 
of  its  members  about  religion,  and  their  practices  as  to  the 
observance  of  the  Sabbath  and  similar  subjects.  It  was  an 
organization  that  had  about  it  no  element  of  personal  or 
corporate  gain.  It  had  no  capital  stock  and  no  stockholders. 
Its  meetings  were  usually  held  on  Sunday.  It  was  held  that 
money  given  to  this  league  was  given  for  religious  use 
within  the  act  of  1855.    Knight's  Estate,  159  Pa.  500. 


268 


GERMAN  EVANGELICAL  LUTHERAN 
CHURCH 

Diversion  of  property,  269. 

Diversion  of  Property.  Property  was  conveyed  to  the 
society  in  trust  lo  be  held  as  an  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Chnrch  forever,  in  which  tlie  doctrine  of  the  Augshui-g  Con- 
fession and  Luther's  Smaller  Catechism  shall  be  taught  and 
adhered  to.  Provision  was  also  made  for  conducting  the 
service  in  the  German  and  also  in  the  English  language. 
The  local  societ}-  enacted  a  constitution  i)i'()viding  for  the 
election  of  seniors  and  wardens,  and  that  the  ])astor  must  be 
a  regular  clergyman  connected  with  some  Evangelical 
Lutlieran  Synod  in  the  Tnited  States  of  America. 

Abont  lSr>o  the  pastor,  as  alleged,  began  a  S3steumtic 
effort  to  lead  the  congivgation  to  adoj)t  ])rac(ices  in  churcli 
worshii)  which  are  nol  a|»[>rove<l  oi-  jnacticed  by  those 
churches  which  are  connected  with  the  ICvangelical  Lulheran 
Ministerium  of  the  Slate  of  New  York  and  adjacent  i»arls, 
among  wliicli  jd-actices  was  the  use  of  lighted  candles 
during  the  services  in  the  clunch  in  the  daj'time,  the  use 
of  tlie  wafer  at  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Sui)pei',  auric- 
ular confession,  and  the  use  of  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and 
such  Bomish  practices  as  are  disapproved  by  the  Evangel- 
ical branch  of  said  denomination. 

The  ti'ustees  gave  the  pastor  notice  of  the  termination  of 
his  pastoral  relations  after  three  months.  The  trustees  at- 
tempted to  get  ]>ossessi(Mi  of  the  property.  They  demand<>d 
the  key  of  the  se.xton,  who  refused  to  deliver  it.  IM-o( cedings 
were  commenced  against  the  pastor  and  sonu'  of  the  trus- 
tees and  mend>ei-s  adlu'ring  to  his  inleicsls,  to  restrain  them 
from  taking  jiossession  of  the  jtroperly  or  from  exercising 

269 


•_'70  Tin:  CIN'll.   LAW   AXh  Till;  CIUKCII 

;niy  t'lincl  ions  llici-cin.  ll  \\;is  ln-ld  lii;ii  |»l;ii iil  ills  wen; 
entitle*!  ((»  tlie  |><»ssessi(»ii  of  tlie  [ddperl  \  ,  ;iii(l  tlie  |i;islor'H 
jKlliereiits  were  not  en(itle(l  to  continne  in  possession 
thereof.  German  lOvangelieal  Lutheran  Church,  Newark  v 
Maschop,  10  N.  J.  Eq.  57. 


GERMAN  EVANGELICAL  SYNOD  OF 
NORTH  AMERICA 

Property,  separation,  injunction,  271. 

Property,  Separation,  Injunction.  A  local  society  was  or- 
ganized, but  the  papers  were  defective.  Trustees,  were 
chosen,  a  corporate  organization  was  maintained,  the  riglit 
to  be  a  corporation  asserted,  and  the  corporate  franchise 
accordingly  used  down  to  the  commencement  of  this  action. 
The  corporation  was  undei-  tlie  jurisdiction  of  llio  (Jcrnian 
Evangelical  Synod  of  North  America,  and  was  presided  over 
by  ministers  of  that  denomination.  Land  was  conveyed  to 
trustees  of  the  local  society,  on  which  the  church  edifice  was 
erected  and  dedicated,  as  proi)erty  of  a  society  of  the  Ger- 
man Evangelical  Synod  of  North  America,  and  used  in  har- 
mony therewith  until  some  time  in  ISIMI.  Owing  to  the 
dilliculty  attending  the  employment  of  a  minister,  tiie  society 
em])loyed  one  who  was  a  member  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  a 
sect  materially  different  in  its  religious  belief  and  distinct 
from  that  of  the  Wayne  Society.  Tliis  emi)loyment  was  for 
one  year;  at  the  end  of  that  time  a  majority  again  employed 
the  same  minister.  Tlie  minority  ])rotested  on  the  ground 
that  they  desired  and  were  entitled  to  have  a  ministci-  in 
harmony  with  the  views  of  the  (leriiian  I'vangelical  Synod 
of  North  America.  Tlu;  majority  conti-olled  the  jxtssession 
of  the  church,  and  refused  its  use  by  a  minister  of  the 
denomination  to  which  the  society  belonged.  It  was  held 
that  the  ])roi>erty  could  not  he  diverted  to  uses  not  contem- 
plated in  the  original  a((|nisiiioii.  :in<l  this  <liversion  could 
not  become  effective  even  w'\\]\  the  sanction  of  a  niajtti-ity. 
On    the    api)li(ation    of    a    niinoriiy,    who    adhered    io    the 

271 


27:2  Till-:  (M\  IL   LANV   AM)  Till:  ("III   KCII 

(»rijiiii;il  sociciv,  :iii  iiijimcl  ion  w;is  i;riiiil(M|  iiroiiihii  in;^  tin* 
iiiiijorily  from  <liv('r(  iiij;  Hm'  pi-opciM y  from  the  use;  to  Axliich 
it  li;i(i  been  dovoted  al  tli<'  lime  of  its  ncfpiisit  ion.  jiihI  llie 
erection  jind  (IcdicjHion  of  tlx'  clinnli  edifice.  Franke  v 
Mann,  100  Wis.  118. 


GERMAN  REFORMED  CHURCH 

Description,  273. 

Dissolving  relation  to  Clussis,  effect,  273. 
Joint  title,  division,  effect,  274. 
Judicatories,  274. 

Description.  The  German  Reformed  Church,  founded  in 
1563,  was  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  organization,  not  merely 
having  adopted  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  as  the  confession 
of  its  faith,  but  having  a  written  constitution,  a  settle<l 
form  of  government  by  ecclesiastical  judicatories,  four  in 
nund)er,  in  regular  gradation,  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest, 
having  cognizance  of  ecclesiastical  matters  though  tlielr 
power,  of  course,  was  wholly  spiritual.  First,  the  Consis- 
tory, the  primary  governing  Itody  of  each  church  or  congre- 
gation, composed  of  the  minister  oi'  ministers  of  that  church, 
together  with  the  elders  and  deacons  as  the  representatives 
of  the  peo])le;  second,  the  (Massis,  consisting  of  all  the  min- 
isters and  delegated  elders  of  the  congregations  within  a 
certain  designated  territorial  district;  third,  a  Synod,  eon 
sisting  of  the  ministers  and  lay  delegates  of  the  several 
classes  embraced  within  its  prescribed  geograjthical  limits; 
and,  fourth,  the  General  Synod,  tlie  highest  jndiiatory  of 
the  church,  and  the  court  of  last  resoi-t,  composed  of  min- 
isterial and  lay  delegates  elected  by  all  the  classes  respec- 
tively, according  to  a  prescribed  ratio  of  representation. 
Koshi's  A  pp.  CO  Ta.  4(;2. 

Dissolving  Relation  to  Classis,  Effect.  According  lo  ilie 
head  note  in  Miller  v  Gable,  10  Taige  (N.  V.  i  (i-7.  wlu-ic 
the  trustees  of  a  German  Kefornied  Clinrch  which  was  in 
ecclesiastical  connection  with,  an«l  subject  to.  the  church 
judicatories  of  the  Dnlch  Reformed  Churcli  in  the  lniie<l 
States,  attempted  to  diss(»Ive  the  connection  ot  such  church 

273 


1»74  TllIO  CINIL   LAW  AND  Till:  ("IUKCII 

willi  Ihe  cliisscs  to  whicli  il  bclonj^JMl,  iind  j'lnplovcd  (J«;riiiiiii 
LullicrjiM  pMstors.  without  the  cousjMit  of  a  large  poitioii 
of  IIm'  cliiircli  aii<l  congregation,  or  of  the  claKseH  with  which 
the  clmi-ch  was  connected,  and  refused  to  permit  the  stated 
supplies  jii-ovided  hy  the  classes  to  (xcupy  the  pulpit.  Held, 
that  such  conduct  of  the  trustees  and  their  adherents  was  a 
diversion  of  the  funds  and  property  of  the  church  from  tin- 
purposes  for  which  they  were  conti'ihuted  by  the  oiiginal 
donors.    See  this  case  on  a]»|>eal  '2  I)eni<j  (  N.  V.)   41)1',  570. 

Held  also,  that  tho.se  inendters  of  the  church  ami  congrega- 
tion who  adhere<l  to  the  oiiginal  doctrines  of  the  church, 
and  who  had  continued  their  ecclesiastical  connection  with 
the  church  judicatoiies  to  which  they  were  subordinate  when 
the  property  of  the  church  was  acquired,  and  who  had  also 
kept  uj)  a  proper  corporate  organizatiou,  by  the  regular 
election  of  the  proi>er  church  officers,  as  trustees  of  the 
corporation,  from  time  to  time,  were  entitled  to  the  tempo- 
ralities of  the  church  and  to  its  books  and  papers. 

Joint  Title,  Division,  Effect.  The  German  Reformed  So- 
ciety and  the  Lutheran  Society  occupied  land  together  for 
many  years,  using  the  same  church  building.  The  original 
tract  of  land  thus  occu]»ied  contained  about  eight  acres. 
After  a  long  period  of  joint  occupancy  the  Gennan  Reformed 
Society  concluded  to  erect  a  separate  house  of  worship,  and 
for  that  i)uri>ose  took  possession  of  about  three  quarters 
of  an  acre  at  one  end  of  the  eight  acre  tract,  sufliciently  dis- 
tant from  the  other  house  of  worship,  so  that  neither  congre- 
gation interfered  Avith  the  service  of  the  other.  In  St.  Pauls 
Ref.  Ch.  V  Hower,  r.ll  Pa.  St.  :'.0(;,  it  was  held  that  although 
those  who  erected  a  new  church  could  not  without  the  ci>n- 
sent  of  the  other  party  take  lawful  possession  of  a  portion 
of  the  land,  the  Lutherans  objecting  were  estopped  from 
claiming  title  to  the  new  building,  which  had  been  occu]iie<l 
about  ten  years  without  objection. 

Judicatories.  The  Judicatories  consist  of  three  heads;  the 
Consistory,  the  Classis,  and  the  Synod.  And  by  the  sixth 
article  of  the  Discipline  it  is  provided  that  when  any  i^erson 


GICKMAX  KKFOKMi:!)  CIUJ^Cll  L'75 

may  tliiuk  himsell"  ajigrieved  by  the  decision  (if  a  lower  judi- 
catory, be  has  a  right  to  appeal  to  a  hi<:;her;  and  whatever 
is  conclude<l  in  such  judicatory  by  a  majority  of  votes,  is 
valid  and  binding,  nidess  it  can  be  shown  to  be  contrary  to 
the  Word  of  God  and  the  coustitution  of  the  church.  Church 
V  Seibert,  :}  I 'a.  282. 


GERMAN  SOCIETY 

WashinKton,  D.  C,  270. 

Washington,  D.  C.  About  the  year  1832  a  hirge  number  of 
(revniaus  l'()un<l  tbeniselvos  douiiciled  in  the  city  of  Washing- 
ton, which  then  contained  no  church  where  the  services  were 
l)erfonned  in  their  own  tongue.  The  bond  of  nationality 
l)roved  stronger  than  devotion  to  religious  forms,  and  they 
all,  from  time  to  time,  assembled  in  common  worship  con- 
ducted in  the  German  language  by  some  of  their  members ; 
and  the  testimony  disclosed  the  rather  remarkable  fact  that 
this  company  of  foreigners,  composed  of  .lews,  Roman  Cath- 
olics, Lutherans,  and  Calvinists,  for  a  considerable  time  con- 
tinued in  harmony  to  attend  the  same  religious  exercises. 
Ebbinghaus  v  Killian,  1  Mackey  (Dis.  of  C.)  247. 


276 


GOSPEL 

Defined,  277. 

Defined.  "( Jos|)el,  aocoidiii};  lo  the  common  and  more  gen- 
eral acieptation  of  the  lerni,  is  synonymous  with  Chris- 
tianity or  the  Christian  religion."  Attorney -General  v 
Wallace,  7  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  (HI. 


277 


GREEK  CHURCH 

Comparison  with  other  C'atholic;  rhurchos,  278. 

Diversion  of  property,  278. 

Priest,  api)ointment  and  removal,  279. 

Comparison  with  Other  Catholic  Churches.  The  United 
Greek  Church  is  an  orj^aiiizatiou  separate  and  distinct 
from  the  Orthodox  Greek  Catholic  Russian  Church,  and  its 
doctrines,  tenets,  rules,  etc.,  are  the  same  as  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  except  in  some  matters  of  discij)line.  al- 
though acknowledging  the  i)ope  as  the  ecclesiastical  head 
of  the  church,  and  acknowledging  the  authority  of  the 
bishops  appointed  by  him.  The  Ortliodox  Greek  Catholic 
Russian  Church  differs  in  many  respects  in  its  faith,  doc- 
trines, tenets,  rules,  etc.,  from  the  United  Greek  Catholic 
Church,  and  acknowledges  as  its  spiritual  or  ecclesiastical 
head,  the  Synod  of  Russia,  consisting  of  bishops  appointed 
by  the  Czar  of  Russia.  These  two  separate  and  distinct 
churches  have  existed  and  had  these  marked  differences  in 
llieir  beliefs  and  government  for  a  long  period  of  time. 
Greek  Catholic  Churcli  v  Orthodox  Greek  Church,  195  Pa. 
St.  425. 

Diversion  of  Property.  In  18S1)  a  deed  of  land  was  made 
on  which  a  church  had  been  erected,  and  was  then  being 
used  by  a  society  with  a  regular  pastor,  worshi]>ing  accord- 
ing to  the  forms  of  the  United  Greek  Catholic  Church.  It 
was  held  tliat  the  trust  contained  in  the  deed  of  the  church 
property  was  created  for  the  Greek  Catholic  Church  at 
Wilkes-Barre,  as  it  was  then  being  conducted.  A  new  pastor, 
who  came  to  his  ])osition  in  1S!)2,  taught  new  doctrines  and 
forms,  and  required  of  the  congregation  and  trustees  that 
they  renounce  their  belief  in  tlie  doctrines  and  dogmas  of 

27S 


GKEEK  CllLUClI  1»7'J 

the  Uniled  (Jieek  Catholic  Chinch.  A  portion  of  the  con- 
gregation, led  by  the  pastor,  attempted  to  transfer  the 
society  and  its  property  to  the  Orthodox  Greek  Catholic 
Russian  Church.  An  injunction  was  granted  preventing 
such  transfer.  Greek  Catholic  Church  v  Orthodox  Greek 
Church,  195  Pa.  St.  425. 

Priest,  Appointment  and  Removal.  Tn  I'apalion  v  Manusas, 
ll.">  111.  App.  .")!(;,  it  was  held  that  the  board  of  trustees  had 
power  to  api)oint  and  dismiss  a  priest,  and  that  the  jxtwer 
was  not  vested  in  the  congregation.  There  was  no  evidence 
of  any  law  of  the  denomination  prescribing  any  other 
method  of  appointment  or  removal.  There  was  no  evidence 
to  show  that  either  in  this  country  or  in  Europe  a  priest 
had  ever  been  elected  by  the  vote  of  the  church  or  congrega- 
tion, or  that  there  was  any  law  of  the  church  providing  for 
such  election. 


GUARDIAN 

Removal  on  c-h;inf!;o  of  religions  faith,  280. 
Ward's  rcligiou.s  education,  281. 

Removal  on  Change  of  Religious  Faith.  Testator,  who  (lie<l 
in  181)0,  by  hi.s  will  a])i)oiiitt'(l  iiis  si.ster  guardiau  of  his 
iufaut  daughter,  eleven  years  of  age.  In  H)00  the  guardian 
became  a  Roman  Catholic.  Under  the  circumstances,  the 
court  considered  this  change  of  religious  faith  a  sufficient 
ground  for  the  removal  of  the  guardian.  The  ward,  who  had 
been  brought  up  a  Protestant,  objected  to  remaining  longer 
under  her  aunt's  charge.  The  court  ob.served  that  the 
father's  religion  is  prima  facie  the  infant's  religion,  and  the 
guardian's  duty  is  to  see  that  the  ward  is  brought  up  in 
that  religion,  and  is  protected  against  disturbing  influences 
by  persons  holding  the  tenets  of  a  different  faith.  The  court 
also  said  that  in  considering  questions  of  guardianship,  it 
has  regard,  before  all  things,  to  the  infant's  welfare;  and 
expressly  declared  that  there  was  no  imputation  against  the 
guardian  who  had  changed  her  religion  from  conscientious 
motives. 

"One  of  the  lirst  and  most  sacred  duties  of  (he  parents  is 
lo  imbue  the  mind  of  the  child  with  some  religious  belief, 
and  this  is  done,  not  merely  by  precept  and  instruction,  but 
by  the  unconscious  influence  of  everj'day  life  and  conduct. 
The  child  is  entitled  to  this  care,  and  the  opi)ortunity  of 
resorting  to  the  guardian  for  assistance  and  instruction  in 
the  doubts  and  difficulties  that  assail  tlie  youthful  mind, 
and  they  usually  become  more  marked  an<l  urgent  as  she 
develops  from  girlhood  to  womanliood.  But  if  the  guardiau 
changes  her  religion,  she  dej^rives  the  ward  of  this  protec- 
tion and  refuge."     "1  accept  the  guardian's  assurance  that 

280 


OTWRDIAN  2S\ 

she  has  not  attempted,  and  will  not  attempt  in  any  way  to 
influence  the  ward ;  but  this  means  that  the  subject  of  reli- 
gion is  excluded  from  their  conversation,  and  that  the  ward 
is  deprived  of  all  the  protection  and  assistance  in  religious 
matters  which  she  is  entitled  to  ex])ect  fr(»m  her  guardian. 
Further  than  this,  the  disturbing  influence  arising  Inun  the 
sight  of  the  guardian  worshiping  in  a  difleront  chnrcli.  and 
consulting  the  jjriests  of  another  faith,  may  well  he  i»rej- 
udicial  to  the  ward's  peace  of  mind  and  secure  (((iilidcnce  in 
her  own  religious  belief."  F.  v  F.  |1  i.  1  L.  II.  ("h.  i  lOng.  i 
088  (1902). 

In  State  ex  rel  Baker  v  Bird,  25:^.  Mo.  SOD,  it  was  hehl 
that  under  the  Missouri  Revised  Statutes  of  11)00  a  guardian 
could  not  be  removed  merely  because  he  was  of  a  dillerent 
religious  faith  than  that  of  his  ward  or  his  ward's  i)arents. 

Ward's  Reli^ous  Education.  Such  education  sliould  bo 
according  to  the  religious  j)reference  of  the  parenls.  it'  any 
have  been  expressed,  and  such  preference  should  be  con- 
sidered by  the  court  in  appointing  a  guardian.  lie  Jacquet, 
40  :disc.  (N.  Y.)  .^)7r).  82  N.  Y.  S.  080.  Citing  Matter  of 
Scaulan,  57  L.  J.  (*h.  (Fug.)  718,  in  which  the  court  refers 
with  approval  to  an  authority  holding  that  the  guardian 
was  to  have  sacred  regard  to  the  religion  of  the  father, 
whatever  that  religion  may  have  been. 

In  Matter  of  Mancini,  80  Misc.  (X.  Y.)  83,  a  Catholic  girl, 
an  orphan,  fourteen  years  of  age,  requested  the  apj>ointnient 
of  a  Protestant  in  whose  family  she  had  lived  for  live  years. 
The  Surrogate  r<Hognized  the  claim  of  her  family  that  she 
be  educated  in  the  Catholic  faith,  and  directed  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  ])roi)osed  Protestant  guardian,  on  condition 
that  he  place  her  in  a  Catholic  ivsidential  educati(»nal  insti- 
lution. 


INDEPENDENTS 

Definition,  282. 

Definition.  Independents  are  so  called  for  maintaining, 
in  opposition  to  Ki)iscopalians  and  I'resbyterians,  that  each 
congiej;ation  is  a  conij)lete  cliuich,  and  is  in  no  respect  snb- 
ject  to  the  control  of  others.  The  Independents  are  a  sect 
of  modern  date.  The  liierarchy  established  by  Qneen  Eliza- 
beth, the  vestments  worn  by  the  clergy  in  the  celeliration  of 
divine  worship,  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  the  sign  of  the 
cross  nsed  in  baptism,  etc.,  were  considered  by  many  persons 
as  too  nearly  resembling  popery,  and  a  purer  worshij*  ami 
more  perfect  reform  were  demanded.  These  persons  were 
called  Puritans.  They  divided  from  the  church,  or,  rather, 
the  church  cast  them  out.  Brown  first,  Robinson  afterward, 
molded  a  certain  portion  of  this  mass  into  the  sect  now 
known  in  England  by  the  name  of  Independents.  From 
thence  sj)rung  Congregationalists  in  this  country.  Bom  in 
the  Old  World  and  in  tliis,  I'resbyterians,  Independents,  or 
Congregationalists  form  <listinct  religious  societies  or 
churches.    Muzzy  v  Wilkins,  Smith's  X.  H.  Rep.  1. 


282 


INJUNCTION 

Baptism,  use  of  stream  for,  283. 

Cemetery,  obstructing  access  to  lot,  283. 

Cemetery,  removal  of  bodies,  284. 

Diversion  of  property,  284. 

Ecclesiastical  bodies,  285. 

Expulsion  of  members,  285. 

I^ase,  286. 

Members,  interfering  with  property,  286. 

Members,  interfering  with  trust<M3s,  286. 

Minister,  dissolving  relations,  287. 

Minister's  occupancy  of  church,  287. 

Minister,  restraining  call,  290. 

Pews,  rearranging,  290. 

Priest,  restraining  exorcise  of  functions,  291. 

Removal  of  building,  291. 

Restraining  increase  of  salarj',  291. 

Sale  of  property,  291. 

Use  of  building,  292. 

Baptism,  Use  of  Stream  for.  The  trustees  sou<j;ht  an  iujuiic- 
tioii  restraining  the  niaintenanco  of  a  mill  dam,  allejiing 
that  the  back  fiow  of  the  water  covered  a  place  in  the  creek 
which  had  been  given  to  the  church  and  u.sed  bv  it  for  bap- 
tismal puri)oses,  and  that  such  u.se  was  interru]»ti'(l  and 
prevented  by  the  dam.  The  li-ustees  claimed  a  I'ight  under  a 
deed  of  certain  land  including  the  creek  wliicli  assumed  t<» 
reserve  the  right  to  use  the  cieek  for  baptismal  pui-poses 
without  conveying  any  express  title.  It  was  licid  tliat  the 
church  ac(piired  no  right  by  ]»r('scri|»ti(»n  or  oihcrwise  to  a 
jterpetual  use  of  the  water  of  the  s])ring  or  creek  for  bap- 
tismal puri)Oses,  and  the  injunction  was  denied.  Stewart  v 
White.  12S  Ala.  202. 

Cemetery,  Obstructing  Access  to  Lot.  An  injunction  was 
granted  restraining  the  chui-ch  autlioi'ities  from  obstruct- 
ing an  avenue  in  a  cemetery  in  which  a  lot  had  been  sold  i>y 

283 


usi        tin:  ("i\  il  law  and  'iiii;  rm  ijcn 

tlicni  1(>  <lu>  ]i1:iiiil  iir,  iiiiil  on  wIikIi  Ik*  liiid  d'cctccl  :i  r:iiiiily 
(oiiil).  The  j»I;iiii(  ill'  liiid  a  I'if^lil  (jf  acc<'ss  to  lli(*  loiiilt  which 
could  ii(»l  bo  ohslnicU'd  by  the  society.  Burke  v  Wall,  21) 
La.  Ann.  ;'.S. 

Cemetery,  Removal  of  Bodies.  A  chnich  which  has  per- 
mitted its  ineuiber.s  and  olhci-s  to  bnrv  their  (h'jid  on  its  lot 
for  twenty  years  has  thereby  dedicated  sncli  \k\v\  of  its  lot 
to  that  jairpose,  but  in  a  ju-oitei-  case  it  will  not  be  enjoined 
from  selling  the  lot  and  removing  the  bodies  to  another 
l»lace.  Ex  Parte  IMcCall,  Little  v  I'resbyterian  Church, 
Florence,  C.S  S.  C.  481). 

Diversion  of  Property.  In  1856  the  Little  Schuylkill  Navi- 
f^ation  Kailroa<l  and  Coal  Company  conveyed  to  the  First 
Baptist  Church  of  Tanuniua  land  for  the  use  of  public  wor- 
ship, according  to  the  usages  and  ceremonies  of  the  Baptists 
only,  with  a  condition  of  forfeiture  if  used  for  any  other 
purposes.  Afterward  the  land  and  improvements  were 
transferred  by  the  members  of  the  Baptist  Church  to  the 
Salem  Church.  In  1804  the  Schuylkill  Company,  under  its 
right  to  reenter  for  condition  broken,  granted  and  conveyed 
the  land  to  the  respondents,  and  secured  possession  of  the 
l)roperty.  They  thereupon  applied  for  an  injunction,  and  a 
mandatory  injunction  Avas  granted.  It  was  alleged  that  the 
complainants,  claiming  to  be  pastor  and  officers  of  the  Salera 
Church,  had  withdrawn  therefrom  many  years  before,  and 
were  not  members  of  the  society ;  that  the  Salem  Church 
was  not  a  member  of  the  Evangelical  Association,  but  was 
and  had  been  for  years  an  indejjendent  organization.  With- 
out disposing  of  the  questions  directly  on  account  of  the 
form  of  the  remedy  sought,  the  court  on  appeal  dissolved  the 
mandatory  injunction  and  dismissed  the  proceedings.  Fred- 
ericks V  Huber,  180  I*a.  572. 

In  Mt.  Zion's  Baptist  Church  v  Whitmore,  83  Iowa  138 
it  was  held  that  a  majority  of  a  church  had  no  power  to 
divert  the  church  property  to  the  propagation  of  doctrines 
contrary  to  Baptist  articles  of  faith  and  church  covenant, 
and  an  injunction  was  held  i)roper  to  prevent  the  majority 


INJUNCTION  L'S.") 

fioiii  ellectiug  .such  a  (Hver.sioii.  See  also  Morgau  v  (Jahaid, 
58  So.  (Ala.)  002. 

Ecclesiastical  Bodies.  A  iiiiuistei-  was  regularly  ai)pointe(l 
by  llie  bishop  as  pastor  of  this  church.  The  presidinj^  elder 
removed  this  uiiuisler,  assiguni<»-  him  to  another  church  aud 
appoiutiug  auother  minister  in  his  place.  The  pastor  and 
a  board  of  .stewards,  who,  it  was  alleged,  had  been  ignored 
by  the  presiding  elder,  began  a  })roceeding  against  a  new 
board  of  stewards  to  procure  an  injunction  restraining  the 
new  stewards  from  preventing  the  use  of  the  church  by  the 
pastor  and  former  stewards.  The  injunction  was  denied, 
the  court  holding  among  other  things  that  the  questions  in- 
volved were  ecclesiastical  only,  and  that  the  civil  courts 
had  no  jurisdiction  in  the  matter.  Travers  v  Abbey,  104 
Tenn.  005. 

The  j)rinciple  may  now  be  regarded  as  too  well  established 
to  admit  of  controver.sy,  that  in  the  case  of  a  i-cligious  con- 
gregation or  an  ecclesiastical  body,  which  is  itself  but  a 
subordinate  member  of  .some  general  church  organization, 
having  a  supreme  ecclesiastical  judicatory  over  the  entire 
membership  of  the  organization,  the  civil  tribunals  must 
accept  the  decisions  of  such  chui-ch  judicatory  as  tinal  and 
conclusive  upon  all  (piestions  of  faith,  disi  ipline,  or  eccU'sias- 
tical  rule,  and  the  l)ar<y  aggrieved  cannot  invoke  the  aid  of 
the  civil  courts  to  have  such  ]troceedings  reversed.  High  on 
Injunctions,  sec.  2lV.\.  State  e.\  rel  Soares  v  Hebrew  Cong. 
31  La.  Ann.  205. 

Expulsion  of  Members.  In  Holcond)e  v  Leavitte,  121 
\.  Y.  S.  !)S()  an  injunction  was  granted  against  t lie  expulsion 
of  certain  niendters  of  the  society  \\Ii<>  had  proposed  Ity-laws 
for  its  government,  an<l  who,  if  arbitrarily  expcUcd,  \\(»uld 
be  dejtrived  of  ])roperty  rights. 

In  Waller  v  Howell,  20  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  2:{0,  the  court  de- 
cline<l  to  inteil'ere  by  injunction  to  i)revent  the  rector  from 
striking  the  names  of  the  ])laint  ill's  from  th(>  ]»ari^h  register, 
on  the  ground  that  the  (piesiion  invohcd  was  purely  eccle- 
siastical and  beyond  the  jnrisdici  ion  (d'l'ivil  ("ituits. 


L'S<i  Tin:  ('l\  IL   LAW    AM>  Til  I!  riji  |;(  ll 

'^riic  (-()lii|»l;iilKilil  <-l;iilii(M|  tli:il  lie  Ii;m|  iiii  hi  w  I'liliy  hcfii 
|ni(  on  prolcilioii  in  the  society  ;miiI  \\;is  I  lii(';itciic(|  wiili 
expulsion  conlrni-v  lo  llie  inlcs  ol"  tlie  «leiioniiM;i)ion,  iiinl  In- 
iisked  for  an  injnndion.  Tliis  was  <lenie(l  on  the  ^ronnd 
thai  tliecburcli  would  not  lak(.'  such  extreme  action  wiliioui 
<j;ivin<i'  hiui  iin  (►iiporlunitv  t«>  he  lie;HMl,  especially  after  his 
complaint  had  heen  made,  and  that  if  such  action  should 
be  taken,  he  would  have  a  comj)lete  remedy  by  mandanms. 
Ilammel  v  (Jennau  Con;^i-e^al  ion,  1  ^^'kly.  Notes  ('as.  ll'a.i 
•411.    See  also  Members  and  Mandamus. 

Lease.  Land  was  conveyed  to  the  officers  and  members  of 
the  church  for  the  jturpose  of  k<*e)>ing  jukI  maintaining^  a 
place  of  worship.  The  action  of  the  otlicers  iu  leasing  a 
small  portion  of  the  lot  for  erecting  a  store,  the  rent  to  be 
paid  to  the  officers  for  the  benefit  of  the  society,  was  held 
not  to  be  a  violation  of  the  trust  and  an  injunction  restrain- 
ing such  lease  was  refused.  Hayes  v  Franklin,  141  N.  C. 
590. 

Members,  Interfering  with  Property.  I'ersons  who  had 
been  niend)ers  of  this  society,  but  had  withdrawn  therefrom 
and  worshii)ed  in  other  buildings,  forcibly  entered  the 
church  edifice,  changed  the  locks,  and  interfered  and  threat- 
ened the  disturbance  of  the  rights  of  the  society  to  the  unin- 
terrupted use  and  control  of  its  house  of  worship.  An 
injunction  was  granted  to  prevent  the  defendants,  former 
members,  from  interfering  with  the  possession  and  use  of 
the  church  i)roperty.  Christian  Church,  Huntsville  v 
Sommer,  140  Ala.  14.5. 

Members,  Interfering-  with  Trustees.  The  trustees  were 
held  to  be  the  managing  agents  of  the  corporation  and  en- 
titled to  an  injunction  restraining  certain  members  of  the 
society'  from  interfering  with  the  possession  and  manage- 
ment of  the  i)ro]ierty  by  the  trustees.  Baptist  Congregation 
V  Scannel,  ?y  Grant's  Cas.  (Pa.)  48. 

In  Richter  v  Kabat,  114  Mich.  575.  it  was  held  that  injunc- 
tion was  the  i)roper  remedy  to  secure  to  the  officers  of  a 
church  the  i>eaceable  j)ossession  of  its  i)roi)erty  as  against 


IN.TUNCnMON  2S7 

members  of  (he  |)aiisli  \v1m»  have  assiimed  to  exclude  them 
therefrom  witliout  ri«^ht. 

Minister,  Dissolving  Relations.  A  vestry  de  facto  was  lieM 
competent  to  act  in  t-oiisidering  tlie  relations  of  the  rector 
to  the  society.  This  vestry  had  power  to  elect  a  rector,  but 
the  charter  and  b^-laws  did  not  confer  on  the  vestry  the 
power  to  dismiss  a  rector  without  giving  him  an  opportunity 
to  be  beard.  An  injunction  was,  accordingly,  grante<l  re- 
straining the  vestry  from  further  action  until  the  pastoral 
relations  had  been  regularly  severed  in  accordance  with  the 
constitution  of  the  chui-ch.  Batterson  v  Thomj>son,  S  IMiila. 
iV.i.)  2.j1. 

Minister's  Occupancy  of  Church.  The  pastor  was  dismissed 
by  the  action  of  a  majority  of  the  congregation.  He  and 
other  defendants  took  possession  of  the  church  property  and 
he  preached  and  made  api)ointments  to  preach  with  a  view 
to  the  occupancy  of  llie  church  without  the  consent  of  the 
majority.  An  injunction  was  granted  restraining  the  min- 
ister and  his  associates  from  occujning  the  church  without 
the  consent  of  the  majority.  Th(*  majority  represented  the 
church  and  had  a  right  to  select  the  pastor.  Hatchet t  et  al 
v  Mt.  rieasant  Baptist  riiurch  et  al,  4(5  Ark.  i.M)1. 

The  trustees  api)lied  for  an  injunction  restraining  tlie 
defendant,  a  minister,  from  intruding  into  the  church  and 
oc('U])ying  its  ])nlpit  without  authority  and  contrary  to  the 
wishes  of  a  majority  of  li  congregation.  It  was  alleged  that 
he  had  declared  his  intention  to  occupy  the  clmicli  as  a  min- 
ister for  the  next  three  years  unless  ju'evenled  by  physical 
force.  It  a])i>eared  that  he  had  not  be«Mi  emidoyed  as  a  min- 
ister and  was  ii(»t  a  mendK-r  of  Ilie  rlmicli.  The  (oiiri  on 
ap]>eal  granted  an  injunction,  s.iviug  among  other  things 
that  where  ]>ro]»erty  is  held  by  trustees  for  the  exclusive  use 
of  a  particular  organization,  that  body  has  the  right  to  enjoy 
it,  accorditig  to  the  usages  of  the  church.  I'.ven  the  lrnste<'s. 
much  less  others,  have  no  jiowt'r  to  pervert  it  to  other  uses, 
except  in  the  usual  imtde  of  transferring  such  prt)perty.  and 
any  att<'m])t  to  do  so  may  be  resti-ained.     Such   a  l)ody  lias 


2SS  1'lll';  CINIL   LAW  ANh  IMIi:  ClUK'CIf 

(lie  ri<;li(  to  use  it  lor  tlic  |iiii|t<»sc  of  worsliip,  jicconlinj;  to 
the  rules  for  the  govcrmncnl  df  llic  clnii-cli.  And  they  have 
tlie  rijiht  to  luivc  such  worsliip  ik'tIoiiimmI  in  Ilic  ni;inncr  and 
l)y  jKM-sons  dcsijfiuiUMl  hy  tlie  niics  and  tcnels  of  the  church. 
Other  jx'isons  cannot  lawfully  intrude  ujxin  such  rights. 
I'ersons  not  selected  in  th«;  mode  prescribed  hy  the  regula- 
ti(tns  for  the  clinrch  <;<)v<'rnnient  havit  no  riglit  1o  force  theni- 
sel\-es  into  the  cliui'ch  and  olliciate  or  cotidnct  the  religious 
exercises,  and  any  one  d<»ing  so  acts  in  violation  of  law.  A 
congregation  of  religious  j)ei-sons  cannot  be  forced  to  accept 
the  niinistrations  of  a  clergyman  not  chosen  according  to  the 
usages  of  their  church,  and  wlien  a  jx'i'son  aftemi)ts  to  force 
himself  ui)on  tliem  they  may  maintain  a  bill  to  restrain  such 
acts.  Trustees  of  the  First  Congregational  Church  v  Stew- 
art, 43  111.  SI. 

In  Ishani  v  Trustees  of  the  Fii'st  Tresbyterian  Church  of 
Dunkirk,  63  How.  Tr.  (N.  Y.)  405,  it  was  held  that  the 
trustees  of  the  society  could  not  lawfully  ])ermit  the  use  of 
the  church  edifice  by  a  clergyman  mIio  liad  adopted  and  advo- 
cated religious  views  at  variance  with  those  held  by  the 
denomination,  but  those  who  adhei-ed  to  the  original  fjiith 
were  entitled  to  an  injunction  restraining  such  use  of  tlie 
church  edifice. 

This  society  was  a  free  and  independent  church,  and  had 
not  declared  any  particular  articles  of  faith.  It  was  not 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  any  synod,  but  it  was  united  with 
other  Lutheran  churches  in  their  existing  ecclesiastiial 
l)olicy.  In  1867  a  division  arose  among  the  Lutheran 
churches  and  a  new  body  was  formed,  called  the  General 
Council,  to  which  some  of  the  synods  united  themselves,  and 
others  divided.  In  an  action  by  members  of  the  church 
against  the  pastor  and  other  officers  of  the  society,  to  re- 
strain the  pastor  from  officiating  as  such,  and  the  officers 
from  permitting  the  use  of  the  pulpit  by  any  minister  who 
did  not  preach  the  doctrines  indorsed  by  the  General  Coun- 
cil, it  was  held  that  the  action  could  not  be  maintained  for 
the  reason  that  the  society  was  independent,  and  could  elect 


INJUNCTION'  28!) 

its  own  pastor,  aiul  that  be  was  only  bonnd  (o  leach  the  faith 
and  doctrines  generally  accepted  by  Lutherans,  without 
reference  to  any  synod  or  council.  Threnfeldt's  Appeal, 
]01  Pa.  St.  18(>. 

A  Baptist  congregation  by  ij'»;()lu(ioii  requested  the 
pastor's  resignation,  but  instead  of  resigning  he  continued 
to  occnjty  the  |)uli)it.  sometimes  using  force  and  viidence, 
and  to  exercise  tlie  functions  of  a  pastor.  In  an  action  by 
the  society  to  enjoin  the  pastor  fron>  further  use  of  the  |»ul- 
pit  and  churcli  tlie  resolution  of  the  congregati(Mi  was  sus- 
tained, and  an  injunction  against  the  i)astor  was  granted. 
Morris  Street  Baptist  Church  v  Dart,  G7  S.  C.  338. 

Differences  having  arisen  between  tlie  pastor  and  council 
or  governing  bodj^  of  the  church  the  pastor  was  suspended 
for  six  months.  Notwithstanding  this  suspension,  he  occu- 
pied the  puljjit  under  j)rotest,  and  ]»reac]ied,  ai)i)arently 
sowing  seeds  of  dissension  in  the  congregation  and  creating 
opposition  to  the  council  as  the  governing  body  of  the 
society. 

In  a  proceeding  by  the  council  against  the  minister  to 
restrain  him  from  further  occupancy  of  the  pulpit,  or  church, 
an  injunction  was  gi-anted  i»rohil»i(ing  him  from  exercising 
ministerial  functions.  (Icrnian  I'vangclii  al  Congregation  v 
Pressler,  17  La,  Ann.  127. 

The  corjtoration  includes  all  the  mendters  of  a  society, 
and  not  the  trustees  only.  Trustees  are  oflicers  of  the 
society,  and  do  not  hold  the  property  in  trust  in  the  same 
sense  that  a  private  truslee  holds  the  properly  for  his  bene- 
ticiary.  In  May,  KSijl),  the  pastor  and  the  jkmsou  acting  as 
schoolmaster,  chorister,  and  sexton  were  excluded  Iroiii 
their  jiosition  1)3'  action  of  the  ti'ush-es  and  a  majoi-ily  of  Ihe 
mend)ers  of  the  society,  conlrary  1o  the  rules  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church,  which  vested  in  ilic  sviiod  liu  this  case, 
Buffalo)  and  the  minislry  the  sole  |>ower  of  removal  of  the 
]>astor  and  schoolmaslcr ;  and  al  (he  same  lime  llic  trustees 
and  congregation  reiionn*  (mI  the  ecclesiastical  goNcrnmeuf 
of  the  BulTalo  Sviiod.     In  (Ir;ini  v  l'i-ussi:i   Cniiur.ili'd   I]\;in- 


290  TlllO  CI\  IL  LAW  AM»    iiii;  CIHIICH 

j^clicnl  LntlH'i'iiM  (Jcniuiii  Socicly,  ;{<;  N.  V.  Hil.  it  Wiis  held 
(hat  llic  pastor  and  schoolmast*'!*  wen;  not  ciitithMl  to  an 
iiijunclioM  rcsd'ainini;-  Ihc  li-nslccs  and  socicly  Ironi  cnii)loy- 
in<j;  anotlicr  pastor,  and  sclioolniaslcr,  and  tlial  tlic  pi'opcrty 
a('(piircd  by  the  local  clnirch  tor  jfcnci-al  ])nrpos<'s  was  not 
impressed  with  any  trust. 

An  injunction  cannot  he  maintained  by  session  of  an  inde- 
])endent  i'resbyterian  church  to  i-esti-ain  the  occupancy  of 
the  ]»n]])it  by  u  pastor  who  has  been  employed  by  tlu'  con- 
j;regation.  Trustees,  Independent  Presbyterian  Clnirch  and 
Society  of  Bull'alo  (}rove  and  ]'olo  v  I'roctor,  (KJ  111.  11. 

Minister,  Restraining  Call.  The  court  of  chancery  dissolved 
an  injunction  restraining  the  churchwardens  and  vestrymen 
from  extending-  a  call  to  a  minister  without  first  having  the 
salary  ascertained  and  tixed  by  a  majority  of  persons 
entitled  to  elect  churchwardens  and  vestrymen  or  trustees 
of  the  said  church  at  a  meeting  of  such  persons  to  be  called 
lor  that  purpose.  It  was  held  that  the  vestry  had  the  right 
to  make  the  call  which  would  include  an  agreement  as  to 
salary.  Hund)ert  v  St.  Stephen's  Church,  N.  Y.  1  Edw.  Ch. 
(N.  Y.)  308. 

Pews,  Rearranging.  Plaintiif  sought  an  injunction  re- 
straining the  society  from  reconstructing  the  i)ews  so  as  to 
permit  members  of  the  same  family  to  sit  togethei-,  it  appear- 
ing that  prior  to  this  action  the  sejjaration  of  the  sexes  had 
been  observed,  the  males  occupying  the  ground  floor  and 
the  females  occupying  the  gallery.  riaintilV  insisted  that 
to  pei'Uiit  the  sexes  to  sit  together  would  W  immodest,  un- 
chaste, unlawful,  contrary  to  the  discii)line  and  rules  of  the 
congregation,  and  in  violation  of  his  rights  as  a  pew  owner. 
It  was  held  that  under  the  statutes  governing  religious 
societies  the  trustees  had  power  to  make  the  i)roi)osed  alter- 
ations without  any  vote  of  the  congregation,  but  it  ai)peared 
that  a  meeting  of  the  congregation  was  had  in  which  the 
action  of  the  trustees  was  authorized  and  approved.  The 
injunction  was  denied.  Solomon  v  Cong.  B'uai  Jesurun,  49 
How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.I  263. 


iN-irxcriox  2!H 

Priest,  Restraining"  Exercise  of  Functions.  In  Iloiianim  v 
Harrington,  (55  Nel».  S:!l,  (tn  the  ajtjdicatictn  of  llu*  l)ishop. 
an  injunclion  was  granted  against  the  delcMMlant,  a  priest, 
restraining  him  Ironi  exercising  the  powers  and  faculties  of 
parish  priest  in  or  upon  the  property  of  said  parish  of  Or- 
leans in  contravention  of  the  orders  of  th<'  Idshoj)  exercising 
therein  the  functions  of  which  he  had  been  deprived  b}"  the 
bishop,  or  excluding  such  person  as  the  bishop  shall  appoint 
regularly  as  ])riest  of  said  i)aris]i  from  the  church  ])roperty. 
or  interfei-ing  willi  liim  in  the  exercise  of  his  office. 

Removal  of  Building.  The  society  being  weak,  and  in- 
debted for  nearly  the  value  of  its  property,  voted  to  sell  the 
meetinghouse  and  lot  to  the  creditor,  on  condition  that  he 
move  the  building  to  another  town  and  establish  it  there 
f(>r  the  use  of  the  Ba])tist  denomination.  The  society  had 
])ower  to  dispose  of  its  j)roj»erty  in  this  manner,  and  an 
application  for  an  injunction  against  such  removal  was 
denied.     I\ggIeston  v  I>(K)little,  ;*.:'.  Conn.  .'>1M!. 

Restraining  Increase  of  Salary.  The  parent  church  was 
located  at  New  Dorp  and  cha])els  were  established  at 
Castleton  and  Oilfords.  A  resolution  was  adopted  in  the 
absence  of  mend»ers  of  the  cha])els  increasing  the  salary  of 
tlie  pastor  at  each  place.  In  an  action  by  a  member  of  the 
]»ai-ent  church  to  restrain  the  corporation  from  cari-ying  this 
resolution  into  effect,  it  was  held  that  members  of  the 
cliai)els  having  been  ])ermitted  to  vote  at  the  general  niecting 
of  Ihe  church  for  a  long  time,  and  no  ])roi)erty  riglits  being 
involved,  a  court  of  eipiity  would  not  interfere  to  jirevent  tlie 
consummation  of  the  ])ur])o.se  exj)resse<l  in  the  resolution. 
Davie  v  Ileal,  S(;  A.  D.  (X.  Y.)  517,  affirmed  in  ISO  N.  Y.  ."»!.">. 

Sale  of  Property.  I^and  was  conveye<l  to  triistees,  wilh 
<lii-ections  to  biiild  lliereon,  at  llicir  discretion,  a  hou.st*  t»f 
worshi])  for  the  use  of  the  Methodist  l^jusc ojcil  Cliurch, 
South,  with  a  ])rovision  that  ministers  of  that  deiioniinaliou 
should  be  i»ermi1ted  to  preacii  in  the  clnnch,  and  that  tlie 
(Inii'ch  might  be  a|»pro|»rialed  for  such  other  pnrpo.sj's  as 
wonhl  best  furthei-  the  cause  of  Clirist   and   (lie  interest  of 


i".>L'        Tin:  ('i\ii.  LAW  AM)  Tin;  ciirKcn 

s;ii(l  cIuh'cIi  in  llic  (((iiiiiiiiiii  1  \ .  '^riic  iMiildinii  \\;is  crcctcil 
accord iiij^ly,  and  used  lor  (Iiirly  years,  wlien  il  hecanie  nntil. 
for  Inrllier  use.  1Mie  socielv  liavin<i;  determined  to  sell  the 
buildiu};  and  lot,  an  injunction  was  sou^jjlit  rest raininj^  such 
sale  (Ml  the  j;round  that  Ity  ahandoniiig  the  iir<i|(eity  it  had 
revei'ted  to  the  ^I'antoi'.  Tlie  <M»urf  held  this  view  eiM'oneous, 
and  authoii/,ed  the  sale  of  the  juoperty.  liar*!  v  Wiley.  S7 
Va.  125. 

Use  of  Building'.  Land  was  convoyed  to  the  society  for 
tiie  purpose  of  orectiug  thereon  a  li<»use  of  uorshijt  foi*  use 
by  the  society  according  to  the  discipline  of  the  denomina- 
tion. The  basement  was  made  for  a  prayer-room,  but  the 
trustees  leased  it  to  a  teacher  of  a  common  day  school  an<l 
authorized  him  to  change  the  internal  arrangement  of  the 
basement  for  the  convenience  of  the  school.  An  injunction 
was  granted  on  the  application  of  members  of  the  society 
restraining  the  trustees  from  making  such  use  of  the  base- 
ment.   Perrj'  v  McEwen,  22  Ind.  440. 


JEWS 

Bequest  sustained,  293. 
Consolidation  disajipioved,  293. 
Consolidation,  when  may  be  set  aside,  293. 
Dismissal  of  teacher,  293. 

Bequest  Sustained.  In  Bronson  v  Stroiise,  57  Oonii.  147, 
the  coiut  sustained  a  beijuest  for  the  benefit  of  some  poor, 
deserving  Jewish  family  residing  in  the  city  of  New  Haven. 
The  trustees  had  power  to  determine  what  Jewish  families 
were  within  the  coiKlition  prescribed. 

Consolidation  Disapproved.  Tn  Chevra  Bnai  Isiael  Auslie 
Yanove  und  Motal  v  Chevra  Bikur  Cholim  Aushe  Rodof 
Sholeni,  24  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  180,  it  was  held  that  the  plaint  ill' 
could  not  consolidate  with  the  defendant  without  legislative 
autlioritj',  or  the  ap])roval  of  the  supreme  court. 

An  attempted  consolidation  of  the  Congregation  Beth 
Tephila  Israel  and  the  congregation  Anshi  Emith,  the 
former  to  receive  all  the  property  of  the  latter,  and  also  its 
mend)ers,  was  held  ineffectual  for  the  reason  that  it  did  not 
conform  to  the  Religious  Corporations  Law  of  1S!)5,  cliaii. 
723,  sec,  12,  nor  to  the  Mend^ership  (^)rporations  Law  ()!' 
1895,  chaj).  551)  sec.  7.  The  contract  of  consolidation  con- 
tained provisions  beyond  the  powers  of  either  congregation, 
and  it  was  held  that  any  dissatisfied  member  might  maintain 
an  action  to  set  asi<le  the  agreement.  Davis  v  Cong.  Helh 
Tephila  Israel,  40  A.  D.  (  X.  V. )   121. 

Consolidation,  When  May  Be  Set  Aside.  An  unauthorized 
cons(didation  of  corporations  may  be  set  aside  at  the  snil 
of  either  corporation.  Cluvra  Medrash  Auschei  ^Ld^avcr 
V  IMakower  Chcvi-a  Ancclii   I'oland.  (1(1  \.  V.  Snp]).  **55. 

Dismissal  of  Teacher.  A  pcison  who  had  Itcen  cniployc*! 
by  the  society  as  its  tcaclici-.  |)i('a(iicr.  and  liasson,  after 
beginning  his  services,  eslahlisliecl  :i  mci'canl  ile  Imsiness  in 

293 


2!M 


tin:  cin  il  law  and  tih;  rm  kcii 


tlie  SiUiK'  lowii.  It  wiis  ;ill('j;t'(l  lluil  lie  1  r;ins;Ml(Ml  worldly 
Imsiiu'ss  ill  llic  sloiT  on  IIk;  .lewisli  Sal)l>;itli.  The  contract 
was  Iroiii  DccciiiIhm-  1,  1859,  to  Ati},nisl  1,  ISC.O.  ('liar<,'cs 
of  improiK'i-  coihIikI  were  made  aj^ainst  llio  teacher,  grow- 
ing onl  of  llie  Itnsiiiess  estahlislied  ami  rondiK'led  by  him, 
and  lie  was  dismissed  by  a  vole  ol  the  eongregation  Ajtril  IS, 
18(»(h  In  an  action  by  him  against  the  society  to  recover  the 
agreed  compensation  up  to  Angnst  1,  1800,  the  court  said  the 
congregation  were  jnstilied  in  dismissing  him;  he  was  there- 
fore not  entitled  to  compensation  after  the  termination  of 
his  service  after  his  dismissal.  (Congregation  of  the  Chil- 
dren of  Israel  v  Peres,  1'  Coldw.  (Tenn.)  620. 


LIBEL 

Excommunication,  295. 

Privileged  communications,  churrh  disciplino,  2nr). 

Excommunication.  I'laintitT  lnouiilii  ;m  jiction  njiniiisl  the 
])astor  Mild  two  ollu-r  iiumiiIxms  «d'  tlu'  clun'cli  session,  ;illi'i!;- 
\u^  a  libelous  ]»\ibli(al  ion  l»y  (licni  eiMisislin*^  of  a  judnnuMil 
rendere(l  by  tlie  session  exconiinnnicalin^  llie  i»laiiitilV, 
charging  him  with  making  false  and  malitions  slatements 
coneerning  the  i)astoi-.  The  trial  of  the  plainlilV  bv  the  ses- 
sion was  held  withonl  notice  to  him.  It  was  held  that  the 
ecclesiastical  tril»nnal  had  jurisdiction;  its  action  conld  not 
be  reviewed  by  civil  courts.  The  action  of  the  session  in 
declaring  the  excomninnication.  in  making  the  i-ecord 
thereof,  and  its  announcement  by  the  pastor,  including  the 
transmission  of  a  copy  of  it  to  tlu^  jdaintill'.  did  not  con- 
stilute   a    publication   of   a    libel.      I.audis    v    ('am|»bell,    T!t 

Mo.  4:!:;. 

Privileged  Communications.  Church  Discipline.  ^Vords 
spoken  or  wiitlen.  in  the  regular  coursi'  of  church  disci]dine, 
to  or  of  members  of  the  church  iiave,  as  among  the  mendters 
thems(dves,  vei-y  properly  been  held  to  be  privilegi'd  cnm- 
munications.  and  no!  actionable  unless  e\pi-ess  malice  be 
shown  in  the  s|»eakei-  or  ]»ublisher.  Uut  the  i»i-(»tect  ion  of 
the  rule  should  not  be  extended  to  a  mendier  of  the  church 
when  (»n  such  occasion  lie  inipruales  the  ciiaractei-  of  a 
stranger  to  the  rules  of  the  rlnirch,  N\ho  is  not  anieiiaiile  (o 
its  authority,  and  who  has  no  opportunity  to  repel  an 
o|)|u-obrious  accusation  before  the  tribunal  \\lii(li  is  to  try 
it.  An  acc\isation  ma<le  by  a  mend»er  ol  .1  cliurcli,  in  the 
regular  course  of  church  discipliiu',  against  a  i>erson  n<it 
a  nuMubei",  cannot,  as  to  him.  be  consideicd  as  .1  privileged 
communication.     ('oondis\   i{ose.  S  lllackf.  (Ind.t    \~t~K 


2m        Tin:  cix  il  law  am>  'iiii:  cm  i:<  ii 

Words  writ  ten  or  sitokcn  in  the  rcj^ular  course  of  cliurch 
(liscijdine,  or  before  a  tribunal  of  a  religious  society,  to,  or 
of  members  of  the  church  or  society,  are,  as  among  the  mem- 
bers themselves,  j)rivileged  communications,  and  are  not 
actionable  without  ex])ress  malice.  Lucas  v  Case,  9  Bush, 
(Ky.)  297. 


LUTHERANS 

History,  297. 

Organization,  298. 

Alaska,  property,  effect  of  cession  from  Ru.ssia  to  United  States,  298. 

Associations,  299. 

Close  communion,  .300. 

Confession  of  sins,  should  it  be  i)ublic  or  priv'atc?  300. 

Congregation,  powers,  301. 

Dissolving  connection  with  synod,  effect,  301. 

German  language  in  service,  301. 

Icelandic  Church,  302. 

Independent  congregation,  status,  303. 

Minister,  how  employed,  303. 

New  York  City,  304. 

Russian  toleration,  30G. 

Secession,  306. 

Synod,  307. 

History.  P^or  many  centuries  tliere  have  been  Iwo  organ- 
ized associations  of  chnrches,  (•oninicncing  in  (iciiiiany  and 
extending  thronghout  the  United  Stales,  one  known  as  the 
German  Evangelicals,  or  as  the  Evangelical  Clmrdi.  and 
the  other  as  tlie  Evangelical  Lntlierans.  and  there  exists  tlie 
Evangelical  Lntheran  Synod  of  ^^'is(•oIlsin.  distinct  an<l  .sejt- 
arate  from  the  Wisconsin  Distiid  <»l'  I  lie  (Jennaii  IO\angel- 
i<'al  Synod  of  Norlli  America,  and  in  some  respects  in  con- 
llict  therewith. 

The  Lntheran  ('linich,  or  symtd.  adojds  cei-tain  writings 
in  and  shortly  after  the  time  of  Martin  Lnther,  as  concln- 
sive  expression  of  llie  creed  and  inerrant  inlei'|ti-elation  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  i-ejects  certain  <dher  writings  which  ai-e 
ado])ted  by  what  was  called  the  (Jerman  Kefoinied  Chnrch 
as  correct  interpretation  of  the  Sci-ijdnres.  The  I'vangfl 
ica!  Chnrch  recognizes  e(|naily  said  syndxilical  books  of  the 
Lntlierans   and    of    the    Kefcn-nuMi    ('hnnh,    bnt    .iccords    to 

297 


li!)S  TIIIO  ('i\  IL   LAW    AM)  Till:  ClUJiCU 

ikmIIum"  coiiclnsivcnoss  jis  to  the  doctriiu's  therein  i»roiiml- 
gatcd,  or-  iis  to  tlu;  intciju-ctiitioii  of  the  S(rij)tiires,  Init 
;i|»|H()V('s  lliein  as  the  work  of  human  niinds  subject  to  wliat 
may  he  (Jccmed  either  by  the  individual  or  by  the  churdi 
authorities  the  true  meaning  of  the  Scri|)tui-es  themselves. 
The  Lutherans  prescribe  certain  books  as  necessarj'  to  be 
used  in  Sunday  schools,  confessions  of  faith,  and  the  like, 
while  the  lOvangelicals  approve  and  use  other  Itooks  and 
writings.  The  name  ''Lutheran"  is  a  distinguishing  char- 
acteristic of  the  churches  adhering  to  the  former  creed, 
and,  according  to  the  allegations  of  the  conifjlaint,  they  yield 
almost  inspirational  authority  to  the  writings  of  Dr.  Luther. 
Marien  v  Evangelical  Creed  Congregation,  Milwaukee,  lo2 
Wis.  050. 

Organization.  Church  government  in  regard  to  general 
bodies  has  three  distinctions:  First,  episcopal ;  as  in  Sweden, 
Norway  and  Denmark.  Second,  territorial,  which  prevails 
wherever  the  civil  government  is  Protestant  and  interferes 
with  ecclesiastical  atl'airs;  in  this  system  there  are  two  i»re- 
cedents  in  the  consistorium,  or  synod ;  the  first  is  bounded 
by  the  civil  power,  from  the  legal  profession,  with  rank 
e<inal  to  a  bishop;  the  second  is  a  clergynmn.  Third,  the 
third  system  is  the  collegiate,  and  j^revails  in  countries  not 
under  I'rotestant  rule,  and  where  the  civil  government  does 
not  interfere  with  ecclesiastical  matters;  it  ])revails  here  in 
the  United  States.  Harmon  v  Dreher,  1  Spcer's  Va\.  (S.  C.) 
ST. 

Alaska,  Property,  Effect  of  Cession  from  Russia  to  United 
States.  The  society  was  not  incorporatcMl.  The  society  was  in 
existence  long  before  the  transfer  of  Alaska  from  Russia  to 
the  United  States  in  1S(J7,  and  the  society,  before  such 
transfer,  became  the  owner  in  fee  of  land  in  Sitka  by  a  grant 
from  Russia.  Upon  the  transfer  of  the  territory  from 
Russia  to  the  United  States  the  commissioners  of  the  two 
governments  appointed  to  effect  the  transfer  issued  to  the 
said  congregation  a  certificate  of  title  in  fee  simple  to  said 
lot.    The  church  building  on  the  lot  fell  into  decav  and  was 


LT'TITKRANS  200 

removed.  Afterward  the  defendants  entered  on  the  lot  and 
began  the  erection  of  a  bnihiing  adversely  to  the  title  claim 
by  the  congregation,  and  the  society,  throngh  its  trustees, 
sought  a  perpetual  injunction  against  the  erecting  of  this 
building. 

It  was  held  that  the  congregation,  even  if  not  incorpo- 
rated, could  maintain  an  action  through  its  trustees  or  i)er- 
sons  appointed  for  such  j)uri)ose.  The  church  jiroperty  must 
be  held  to  be  "private  individual  property"  failing  witiiin 
the  exceptions  of  the  treaty  of  18G7,  by  which  Russia  trans- 
ferred Alaska  to  the  United  States,  and  this  view  is  sus- 
tained by  the  protocol,  inventories,  and  maj).  The  title  to 
the  Lutheran  Church  lot  never  vested  in  the  United  States, 
but  the  congregation  hebl  the  absolute  and  indefeasible  title 
in  fee  simple  of  said  lot  of  ground  as  granted  to  it  by 
Russia.  No  title  thereto  could  be  obtained  exce])t  through 
said  congregation,  and  a  failure  to  use  and  occujn'  the  lot 
for  church  purj)oses,  did  not  divest  the  congregation  of  its 
title.  It  was  held  that  the  lot  was  not  open  to  jiossession 
and  occupancy  as  i)ublic  lands  of  the  United  States.  "Onr 
government,  therefore,  is  bound  u])on  its  national  honor  to 
maintain  in  good  faith  these  stipulations  of  the  treaty  by 
sustaining  the  fee  simj)le  titles  set  forth  in  the  ])rotocol, 
including  that  of  the  congregation  of  the  Lutheran  (Miurcli, 
and  by  protecting  the  holders  of  such  titles  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  tlie  ]iro|terty  so  grante<l."  The  court  sustained  an 
application  of  the  congregation  for  an  injunction  restrain- 
ing the  defendants  from  erecting  any  structures  on  the  lot, 
or  exercising  any  ])ossessory  rights  tlierelo.  Callsen  v 
Hope,  75  Fed.  Rep.  (U.  S.)  758. 

Associations.  Oernian  Evangelical  Lutheran  Ulinrclies  an; 
congregational  in  their  j)olity.  Tiiei-e  ai'e  several  dilVerent 
national  associations  or  synods  of  such  churches,  but  their 
powers  over  any  particular  local  church  are  advisory,  and 
similar  to  those  of  associations  and  conferences  of  congre- 
gational churches.  German  I'vangelical  Lutheran  (  hnrtlies 
of  the  General  Council,  and   of  the  Missouri   SNuod.  alil<e. 


:;()(>        Tin:  ("i\  il  law  and  'riii:  cm  i:cir 

liokl  lo  (he  caiioiii";!!  Intoks  of  llic  ()I<I  ;iinl  Nrw  Tcsljiinciit 
as  the  Word  of  God,  tlic  iiiuillcicd  Aii;isl»m-^  CoiifesHion  uh 
the  st;ni(lin-(l  of  Cnith  iiiid  llicolo^y,  and  llic  Symbolical 
Books,  so  called,  iiichidin*^  the  Apology  of  the  Au;;s1mii-;; 
Confession,  the  Smalcald  Articles,  the  Catechisms  of  J^uther, 
and  the  Foi-mnla  of  Concord,  as  trne  and  oi-lhodox  exjiosi- 
tions  of  that  faith.  It  is  a  well-settled  rule  of  the  Lutheian 
denomination  that  a  pastor  cannot  be  dismissed  except  by 
his  own  consent,  or  for  persistent  nnchristian  life,  or  njM)n 
the  ground  that  he  willingl}'  teaches  false  doctrine.  Dnessel 
V  Proch,  78  Conn.  343. 

Close  Communion.  The  congregations  in  the  Iowa  Synod 
j)ractice  what  is  called  ''close  communion,"  that  is,  these 
congregations  do  not  permit  members  of  other  Christian 
churches  to  conimujie  with  them,  while  the  congregations 
subject  to  the  general  synod  admit  all  Christians  to  their 
communion  table.    Wehmer  v  Fokenga,  57  Neb.  510. 

Confession  of  Sins,  Should  It  Be  Public  or  Private?  This 
society  was  originally  connected  with  the  Butfalo  Synod, 
but  in  1890  a  majority  of  the  congregation  voted  to  with- 
draw from  that  synod  and  join  the  Ohio  synod,  and  this 
change  was  made;  thereupon  several  members  withdrew 
from  the  society.  Each  party  admitted  that  confession  of 
sins  is  neces.sary  as  a  condition  ]»recedent  to  the  recejttitjn 
of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  matter  in  dis- 
pute was  the  manner  in  which  such  confession  should  be 
made.  The  majority  held  that  i)rivate  confession  was  not 
comi)ulsory,  but  did  not  ])rohibit  its  use  by  those  of  the  con- 
gi'egation  who  preferred  that  method.  This  was  in  accord 
with  the  teachings  of  the  Synod  of  Ohio.  The  minority  ad- 
hered to  the  rule  that  private  confession  was  necessary,  in 
accord  with  the  teachings  of  the  Synod  of  Butfalo. 

The  minority  then  withdrew  from  the  society,  and  brought 
this  action  to  enjoin  the  majority  from  using  the  church  ami 
schoolhouse,  and  to  exclude  them  from  any  participation  in 
the  affairs  of  the  society.  The  court  dismissed  the  action 
holding  that  the  question  in  disi)nte  was  ecclesiastical  and 


J.ITHEKAXS  301 

not  within  the  jiii-isdiction  of  Civil  Ti-il)uiial8.  Schradi  v 
Dornfeld,  52  Miuu.  4G5. 

Congregation,  Powers.  Actoi-ding  to  the  usages  of 
Lutheran  churches  or  congregations,  each  congregation  is 
or  may  be  sujirenie.  There  are  synods  and  conferences,  but 
a  congregation  may  or  may  not  unite  therewith,  and  yet 
be  a  true  Lutheran  congregation  to  all  intents  and  purposes. 
Nor  is  a  congregation  bound  to  unite  N\ith  a  synod  in  the 
same  State;  so  that  although  there  may  be  a  synod  in  one 
State,  a  Lutheran  congregation  may  join  a  synod  in  another 
State.  It  is  regarded  as  doubtful  whether  any  formal  action 
by  the  congregation  is  required  in  the  first  instance  in  order 
to  join  any  s3'nod.  Notwithstanding  a  congregation  may 
have  joined  a  synod,  it  remains  sujjreme  so  far  as  the  right 
to  manage  and  control  its  property  is  concerned.  The  synod 
has  the  power  of  visitation  and  exj)ulsion  if  the  congrega- 
tion does  not  believe  and  ])ractice  the  faith  and  doctrine  of 
the  synod.    Dressen,  et  al  v  Brameier,  et  al  ">(>  la.  750. 

Dissolving  Connection  with  Synod,  Effect.  Tlie  connection 
of  this  society  wi(li  the  ]']v:ingelical  Lutheran  Synod  of 
Ohio  was  voluntary,  and  a  dissolution  of  the  connection  was 
no  violation  of  the  condition  upon  which  the  church  property 
was  holden  by  the  congregation,  llcckman  v  Mees,  1(1  Ohio 
583;  see  also  Gudmundson  v  Thingvalla  LnllnMan  Chnrcli, 
150  N.W.  (\.  O.)  750. 

German  Language  in  Service.  The  society  was  incorporated 
in  1S()(),  and  its  charter  was  amended  in  1873.  According  to 
the  articles  of  incor]iorati<»n,  the  ])ur])o.se  of  the  organization 
was  to  provide  for  holding  ]»ul)]ic  religions  woiship  in  a 
Christian-like  nmnner,  in  accordance  with  the  pure 
Lutheran  doctrine,  the  i)reaching  of  the  W<»rd  of  (iod.  and 
the  ]»roper  administration  of  the  Holy  Sacraments,  and  in 
conformity  with  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  unal- 
tered Augsburg  Confession,  and  assure  to  themselves  and  to 
their  children  the  Lutheran  catechism  in  the  (Jernuiu  lan- 
guage. The  worship  was  always  to  be  conducted  in  con- 
formity   with    the    established    <nstom    of    the    Kvangelical 


::(r_'        'riii:  ciNii.  LAW  .\.\i>  Till;  <'iirK(ii 

liiillicr.iii  ('Imnli,  :iimI  IIm*  worship  iiiid  sci'v'kc  wen*  to  be 
ahviiys  ill  tlic  (Jcriimu  laiifjuiij^c,  so  loiijij  jis  oiu*  iiicmber 
shall  (li'sire  it. 

It  was  ])rovi<le(l  that  iiiiiiistcrs  must  he  iiiciiiIkms  in  {^ood 
faith  in  an  Evanji;('lical  Lutheran  synod,  and  who,  besides 
the  Word  of  God,  hold  as  a  rule  of  their  faith,  the  unaltered 
Au^sburji;  (V)nfession,  and  the  Symbolical  Books  of  the  year 
inso.  The  society  received  at  dillcrciil  times  conveyances 
of  laud  for  j;eneral  church  jdirposes.  It  was  held  that  under 
the  Maryland  statute  only  the  trustees  selected  by  the 
society  became  the  actual  corporation,  and  that  the  corpora- 
tion had  no  ])ower  or  autlioritj'  to  interfere  with  forms  of 
worship,  articles  of  faith,  or  any  other  matter  relating 
strictly  to  spiritual  concerns. 

Referring  to  the  allegation  that  the  use  of  the  German 
language  in  worship  had  been  discontinued,  the  court  said 
that  there  was  no  evidence  as  to  what  the  denomination  had 
required  concerning  the  language  to  be  used  in  worship. 
The  court  had  no  power  to  iiiterfere  as  to  sjuritual  matters. 
Such  matters  were  exclusively  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
denomination.  There  was  no  allegation  that  the  general 
church  had  made  any  decision  or  rule  relating  to  the  use  of 
the  German  language,  or  the  effect  of  discontinuing  it,  or 
the  effect  of  noncompliance  with  the  regulations  concerning 
the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Symbolical  Books.  The 
civil  court,  therefore,  had  no  jurisdiction.  It  was  held  that 
the  court  could  not  grant  the  relief  sought,  namely,  that 
the  trustees  be  restrained  from  holding  services  such  as 
are  objected  to,  and  the  ministers  who  have,  and  are  yet 
otticiating  from  conducting  smh  services.  Shaetfer  v  Klee, 
100  >rd.  IMU. 

Icelandic  Church.  See  Gudmundson  v  Thingvalla  Lutheran 
Church,  150  N.  W.  (N.  D.)  750,  for  a  statement  of  the  his- 
torical connection  between  the  parent  church  in  Iceland 
and  churches  in  North  Dakota,  derived  from  the  nu)ther 
church,  with  a  discussion  of  the  question  of  the  ins))i ration 
of  the  I'ible  as  applied  in  a  local  church  and  by  the  synod 


LUTUKKANS  W.l 

of  wliicli  liie  local  society  was  a  iiiciiibcr.  iiulndin^  evidotice 
of  tlieolo<i;ical  exptMts  as  to  the  belief  of  J^utlieraiis  ami  vaii- 
oiis  forms  of  inspiration. 

Independent  Congregation,  Status.  In  a  conti-oversy  be- 
Iween  two  factioiis  of  llie  society  concerning;-  the  dismissal 
of  the  pastor  and  the  employment  of  another,  and  ilic  ii<j;lit 
to  snch  property,  it  was  held  that  there  was  no  chnrch  tri- 
bunal with  jurisdiction  to  determine  the  (piestions  in  contro- 
versy, or  any  matters  of  faith  or  church  organization,  and 
that  this  local  society  or  congregation  ha<l  never  aililiate<l 
itself  with  any  of  the  national  associations  or  syno<ls.  Land 
was  conveyed  to  trustees  described  as  trustees  of  the.  local 
society.  Thereafter,  by  means  of  church  contribiitions  and 
money  derived  from  other  sources,  a  church  edilice  was 
erected  on  the  lot.  In  1902  the  church  adopted  an  iiide- 
l)endent  constitution.  This  constitution  vested  in  the  whole 
congregation  the  right  to  call  a  j»astor.  The  call  was  not  to 
be  for  a  definite  period,  nor  was  it  to  be  terminated  at  the 
will  of  the  congregation  so  long  as  the  i)r<'acher  should  teach 
as  i)rescribed  in  the  constitution.  The  article  regarding  the 
call  of  a  pastor  was  abrogated  in  1!)04.  After  the  commence- 
ment of  this  action  a  meeting  of  the  society  was  held  and 
several  votes  previously  taken  fornuilly  rati  lied.  The  local 
society  was  congregational  in  jiolity,  and  acted  by  a  niajoi-- 
ity  relative  to  the  call  of  a  pastor,  and  it  was  not  bound  to 
alliliate  with  the  Missouri  synod  or  any  other.  The  consti- 
tution did  not  require  the  unanimous  action  of  tin'  con- 
gregation. A  majority  was  snllicicnt  to  express  its  purpose. 
The  pastoi-  who  had  been  excluded  from  the  church  was  held 
not  entitled  to  tlie  relief  sought  by  way  of  an  injnnciion. 
He  was  rei)resented  l)y  a  minority  only.  The  majority  was 
held  entitled  to  hold  the  pro]»erty  and  administer  the  trust. 
Duessel  v  Proch,  7S  Conn.  .'U:?. 

Minister,  How  Employed.  Ry  the  law  which  governs  tlu' 
Lutheran  church  it  is  allowalde  for  a  congregatiiMi  to  call 
a  pastor  who  is  not  a  nuMnber  of  any  synod,  but  w  lio  t'\|tects 
to  be  admitted  to  mendtcrsliip  therein.     I  lis  cnijilov  incnl   by 


;{()!        TU\:  ('i\ii.  LAW  AM>  T\\\:  (inKcii 

the  coiij;!;r(»}^iilioii  nmsl.  however,  he  hist  approved  by  the 
fieneral  presi(h'iil  of  the  syiicul,  and  from  that  time  until 
final  action  taken  hy  the  synod  he  is  regarded  as  a  j)rf>visory 
member,  or  one  taken  on  trial.  It  is  not  pernjissible  for 
the  congT-egation  to  employ  or  rcdiiii  a  jtastor  who  is  not, 
and  cannot  become  a  iiicinhci  of  the  synod.  Hclldg  v  Kosen- 
berg,  S()  la.  15!). 

New  York  City.  "Thci-c  were  a  few  Liilhcrans  aiiM)ii<i  llie 
first  emigrants  from  Holland  to  this  j)rovince,  an<l  there  is 
no  do\d)t  but  that  they  were  driven  from  Holland  by  the  i)er- 
secution  of  the  Ai-minians,  and  those  holding  kindred  tenets, 
which  had  been  denounced  by  the  Hynod  of  I>ort  in  lOlS-lJ). 
They  were  relieved  from  persecution  here,  but  were  not 
permitted  to  worship  together  in  public  until  after  the 
province  became  a  British  colony.  At  that  era  (1GC4)  they 
had  became  so  numerous  that  they  sent  to  Gennany  for  a 
]»astor,  and  one  arrived  here  in  KJOO.  About  the  year  1(571 
they  erected  a  log  church  at  the  southwest  corner  of  Broad- 
way and  Rector  Street  (New  York)  which  was  known  as 
Trinity  Church.  The  ground  on  which  it  stoo<l  was  granted 
to  them  by  the  government  in  1674."  A  substantial  stone 
edifice  was  afterward,  between  1725  and  1740,  erected  on  the 
same  lot,  contributions  therefor  having  been  made  by 
citizens  of  New  York,  Lutherans  and  others,  and  by  Luther- 
ans in  various  places  in  Europe.  During  the  earlier  years 
of  this  church  its  service  was  in  the  Low  Dutch  or  Holland 
language.  There  was  little  migration  from  Holland  after 
the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  at  the  time  of  tlie 
erection  of  the  stone  church  the  uundter  of  Germans  had 
increased  to  such  an  extent  that  the  service  was  in  the 
German  language  ])art  of  the  time. 

About  1750  a  large  lunnber  of  Germans  detached  them- 
selves from  the  Trinitj'  Church  and  established  a  new  church 
known  as  Christ  Church,  at  the  corner  of  Frankfort  and 
\Villiam  Streets,  in  which  the  service  was  conducted  in  the 
German  language  exclusively  until  the  Kevolution.  Trin- 
ity Church  was  burned  during  the  Kevolution,  and  at  the 


LUTHERANS  805 

close  of  the  war  both  clnuches  were  destitute  of  a  pastor, 
lu  178-1:  the  two  churches  were  uuited  under  the  name  of  the 
United  German  Lutheran  Churches  of  New  York.  A  part 
of  the  time  the  service  had  been  in  lOnf^lish  in  (.'hrist  Church, 
and  also  in  the  reunite<l  churcli.  Prior  to  the  war  of  1812. 
most  of  the  conj>regati(»n,  \\li<)  desiied  to  have  I'^nglish 
j)reachin<:;,  left  the  ohl  chnnli,  and  eslal)lisheed  a  new  one, 
called  Zion  Chnrcli,  wiiere  the  lOnglish  service  alone  was  ])er- 
forined  ;  and  on  Ihis  event  the  English  service  in  the  old 
church  was  disconlinued.  In  1805  the  site  of  Trinity  church 
was  sold  to  lOpistopalians.  Zion  Church  was  destroye/l  by 
fire  in  1814,  and  the  congregation  was  broken  ui». 

About  1821  another  new  church  nioveuient  was  initiated 
and  a  church  known  as  St.  Matthew's  Church  was  estab- 
lished, comj)Osed  in  part  of  members  of  the  original  and  the 
United  Churches.  In  182G  St.  Matthew's  Church  and  lot 
was  sold  for  the  payment  of  its  debts.  The  sale  was  to  a 
member  of  St.  Matthew's  Church,  who  sold  the  property  to 
the  corj)()ration  of  the  United  Churches.  Uiifler  this  deed 
the  church  was  to  be  used  as  an  lOnglish  Lutheran  Church. 
Subsequently  a  new  church  known  as  St.  James  was  organ- 
ized, constituted  of  the  congregation  of  St.  Matthew's 
Church,  which  latter  church  ceased  to  exist.  Subseciuently 
the  congregation  of  the  United  Churches  removed  from 
Christ  Church  to  St.  Matthew's  Church  in  Walker  Street. 
The  service  was  i)art  of  the  time  in  lOnglish,  and  part  of  the 
time  in  German.  But  the  English  service  was  discontinued 
in  18: 50. 

There  was  no  trust  contained  in  any  conveyance  or  agree- 
ment that  any  ])art  of  the  service  in  either  clniitli  sliould 
be  in  the  lOnglisli  language.  By  the  agi-eenient  to  unite  the 
two  churches.  Trinity  and  Chiist  ('hurch,  the  property  of 
both  societies  was  vested  in  the  corporation  callcil  tlie 
United  Churches,  and  the  terms  of  the  agreement  indicate 
the  union  of  two  (Jernian  societies  without  any  piovisiou 
as  to  service  in  English.  A  new  trust  c«tuld  not  be  ini|»ressed 
\ij»on  Trinity  Church  adNcrse  to  the  tiiist  established  by  its 


::(m;        tiii;  cin  il  law  and  tui:  (iiriicii 

ronndcrs.  It  \v;is  lirld  licit  pci'sons  claiiiiiii;^  to  I>c  the 
coi'poi'jitois  niMlcr  tlu;  union  jij^rccinciit,  ;nnl  to  Ix'  rcpi-cscii- 
tatives  of  tlu*  orijjinal  Trinity  ('Inirch,  could  not  maintain 
an  action  a«j;ainst  tho  United  (V)ri>oration  to  coinpcl  tliat 
hody  to  found  and  erect  a  new  clinr<-li  in  jdacc  of  Trinity 
Cliurdi  wliicli  had  been  destroyed,  ('aninuncr  \  I'nitcd 
(Jerinan  Lullieran  C'liurches,  New  York,  2  Satidf.  ("h.  i  \.  \.  i 
20S. 

Russian  Toleration.  Notwithstanding  the  existence  of  an 
cstaldislu'd  (liiirch — Die  (Jreco-Kussian — in  Kussia.  the  set- 
tled policy  of  that  government  for  a  long  period  of  years 
has  been  to  foster  and  protect  among  its  people  religious 
associations  and  organizations  of  every  known  shade  of  be- 
lief or  doctrine;  and  within  the  limits  of  the  empire,  from 
the  Arctic  Ocean  to  the  Chinese  border  and  from  the  North 
Pacific  to  the  Baltic  Sea,  may  be  found  congTegations  whose 
members  are  believers  of  every  known  religious  doctrine  an<l 
form  of  worship,  from  the  faith  of  Islam  and  Mohammed 
to  the  Catholic  creeds  and  high-sounding  liturgies  of  the 
Greek  and  Komau  churches;  all  enjoying  the  protection,  if 
not  the  patronage,  of  the  crown.  Among  these  the  member- 
shi])  of  the  Lutheran  denomination  ranks  next  in  nund)ers 
to  that  of  the  established  church,  and  the  population  of  the 
Baltic  provinces  and  Finland  are  almost  entirely  Lutheran. 
The  reasons  for  this  policy  are  not  far  to  seek,  as  it  is  one 
which  must  inevitably  bind  to  the  autocrat  adherents  of 
all  the  different  denominations  thus  fostered  and  ])rotected 
by  the  sovereign  head  of  the  em])ire.  Following  its  long- 
established  policy  on  religious  matters,  Russia  desired  to 
l)rotect  the  congregation  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  with 
others  to  whom  title  to  lands  in  Alaska  had  been  givcTi.  in 
the  enjoyment  of  the  ])roperty  so  gi*anted,  and  the  Tnited 
States  acceded  to  that  desire.  Callsen  et  al  v  Ho]»e  et  al, 
7(;  Fed.  (V.  S.)  758. 

Secession.  It  was  held  that  the  society  was  entitled  to 
maintain  ejectment  against  a  jiortion  of  the  congregation 
who    seceded,    formed    a    separate    organization,    and    took 


LUTHKKANS  :;07 

])osses.sioii  of  the  church  [)i-()i)crty.     Fcrusller  v  Seiberl,  114: 
l»a.  1J)G. 

Synod.  A  general  synod  of  Lutlieraii  Cluirches  in  the 
United  States  was  organized  in  1820.  KnisUern  v  Lutheran 
Ch.,  1  Sandf.  Ch.  (  N.  Y.j  439.  The  synod  does  not  assume 
any  authority  to  define  doctrine  for  the  congregation.  But 
the  meetings  of  tlie  synod  are  only  advisory  so  far  as  the 
congregations  are  concerned.  ''Questions  of  doctrine  and 
conscience  cannot  he  <lt't(M-mined  by  a  ]durality  of  votes, 
but  only  according  to  tlie  Word  of  God,  an<l  the  syndiolical 
books  of  our  churcli."  The  synod,  and  the  congregations 
sending  delegates  to  it,  are  merely  religious  bodies  in  Ihe 
organization,  control,  and  government  of  which,  as  such, 
the  civil  tribunals  have  nothing  to  do.  It  is  for  the  syno<l 
to  determine  when  and  for  what  cause  it  will  sever  its  con- 
nection with  any  congregation ;  and  for  the  congregation, 
considered  merely  as  a  religious  association,  to  determine 
when  it  will  expel  a  member.  Trustees,  East  Norway  Lake 
Norwegian  Evangelical  Lutheran  Chui'ch  and  others  v 
Halvorson,  42  Minn.  503. 


MANDAMUS 

Cemetery,  burial,  308. 

Expulsion  of  member,  308. 

Joint  use  of  property,  308. 

Member,  restoration,  309. 

Minister,  reinstatement,  310. 

Special  election,  311. 

Trustees,  title,  312. 

Vestry,  312. 

Vestry,  duty  to  attend  meeting,  312. 

Cemetery,  Burial.  In  People  v  St.  Patrick's  Cathedral, 
21  Hiiii  (N.  Y.)  184,  a  Freemason  was  held  not  eligible  to 
burial  in  a  Koman  Catholic  cemetery  under  its  rules,  and  a 
writ  of  mandamus  to  compel  the  cemetery  officers  to  i»ermit 
such  bnrial  was  refused. 

Expulsion  of  Member.  In  Saltnian  v  Nesson,  201  Mass. 
534,  it  was  held  that  the  remedy  to  test  the  validity  and 
regularity  of  the  exi)ulsion  of  a  member  of  a  religious  corpor- 
ation is  by  mandamus,  and  not  by  a  suit  in  equity.  See  also 
Members  and  Injunction. 

Joint  Use  of  Property.  For  the  purpose  of  erecting  a  new 
church  edifice  on  land  owned  by  this  society  subscriptions 
were  made  and  paid  by  persons  some  of  whom  were  mem- 
bers of  other  denominations,  and  some  not  adherents  of  any 
church.  The  subscriptions  were  made  on  condition  that 
when  the  building  was  not  used  bj'  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Church  it  should  be  free  for  the  use  of  other  religious  de- 
nominations in  the  vicinity.  The  Methodist  Protestant 
Church  having  refused  to  permit  the  Christian  Church  to 
use  the  building,  the  latter  society  applied  for  a  mandamus 
to  compel  the  Methodist  Protestant  society  to  oj>en  the 
hou.se  for  the  use  of  the  other  society.  It  was  held  that  a 
writ  of  mandate  was  not  the  proper  remedy,  but   that  an 

308 


MAN  DAM  IS  309 

action  in  equity  should  liave  been  brouj>lit  on  the  contract 
contained  in  the  .subsci'i])tion.  State  ex  rel  I'oyser  v  Tnis- 
tees  of  Salem  Church,  114  Ind.  3SJ). 

Member,  Restoration.  A  member  of  the  church  was  ex- 
cluded, as  he  claimed,  without  lawful  authoi-ity.  The  act  of 
excommunication  was  by  the  consistory  which,  it  was 
alleged,  did  not  i)ossess  the  jjower  of  excommunication. 
The  excluded  member  ai)i)lied  for  a  writ  of  nmndamus  to 
compel  the  church  ofiicers  to  reinstate  him.  A  writ  of 
mandamus  was  denied,  it  being  held  that  even  if  the  at- 
tem])ted  exclusion  was  invalid,  the  member's  remedy  was  by 
ai)peal  to  the  j)r()i»ei'  chui-ch  tribunal.  Cliuicli  v  Sciberl,  :> 
l»a.  St.  282. 

In  State  ex  rel  Soares  v  Hebrew  Cong.,  :)\  La.  Ann.  I'O."), 
it  was  held  that  nmndamus  would  not  lie  to  compel  the 
restoration  to  nuMubership  of  a  person  exjielled  from  a  reli- 
gious society,  it  aj)pearing  that  such  expulsion  was  by  the 
decree  of  the  legally  constituted  clMinli  judicatory,  on  ac- 
count of  an  alleged  violation  of  some  one  or  more  of  the  laws 
of  the  society.  The  civil  courts  will  not  revise  the  oi-diiiai-y 
acts  of  church  discijiline  or  the  adminislialioii  of  cliiiicii 
government. 

The  relator,  who  had  been,  as  he  claimed,  irregularly 
expelled  from  the  society  and  congregation,  ajiplied  for  a 
writ  of  mandamus  to  com])el  his  i-estoration.  The  exjtulsioii 
was  admitted,  but  it  ap}»eared  that  the  .society  ha<l  no  }»i-op- 
erty;  that  the  relator  had  acted  in  hostility  to  the  interests 
of  the  society,  had  given  grounds  for  regnlai-  removal  and 
that  his  restoration  would  desli-oy  the  society.  It  also 
appeared  that  if  restored,  he  might  be  immediately  .again 
expelled.  The  court  declined  to  exercise  its  discreti(»n  in 
favor  of  the  relator,  and  therefore  refused  the  writ.  Teoplc 
ex  rel  Meister  v  Anshei  Ohese<l  Hebrew  Congregati(tn,  P>ay 
City,  in  Mich.  542. 

In  People  ex  rel  Dibber  v  (Jerman  I'niled   i'.van.  ('liuich, 
53  N.  Y.  103,  a  writ  of  mandamns  was  refused  to  the  jilain 
tiffs  who  alleged   llial    Ihev  ^\•eI•e  wion^fnlh-  exclndet]    lidin 


::i(i        Tin:  cix  iL  law  am»  Tiir:  niriicir 

(dlicc  :iimI  iiu'ml)t'rslii|)  in  (lie  cliurcli.  Tlir  courts  siiid  It 
could  ii«t(  he  re.ulily  deterniiiMMl  ti-oiii  llic  |»;i|»(ms  wlu'thcr 
the  exclusion  was  by  the  corjKnalioii  or  by  the  <  Imrcli  as  a 
religious  society.  If  it  were  by  the  corporation,  such  exclu- 
sion was  a  nullity;  but  if  it  were  by  the  society,  its  action 
was  not  subject  to  review  bj'  the  civil  courts. 

A  person  who  had  been  exjjelled  from  the  society  applied 
for  a  writ  of  mandamus  to  compel  her  reinstatement  and 
restoration,  but  the  writ  was  denied  on  the  ground  that  the 
expulsion  was  presumably  by  the  society  and  not  by  the 
corjjoration ;  that  it  was  an  ecclesiastical  matter,  and  that 
the  person  was  not  entitled  to  the  writ  unless  some  civil  or 
property  right  was  affected  by  the  expulsion.  Sale  v  First 
Kegular  Bai)tist  Church,  G2  Iowa  20. 

A  writ  of  mandamus  was  held  to  be  a  proper  remedy  to 
restore  a  person  to  membershi])  in  a  religious  society  from 
which  she  had  been  unlawfully  deposed.  All  questions  relat- 
ing to  the  status  of  the  applicant  could  be  determined  on 
the  hearing  under  the  writ.  Hughes  v  North  Clinton  Baptist 
Church,  East  Orange,  67  Atl.  GG  (Sup.  Ct.  N.  J. ). 

A  writ  will  not  issue  to  compel  the  restoration  of  a 
church  member  after  expulsion.  Hundley  v  Collins,  1J)1 
Ala.  234. 

Civil  courts  will  not  consider  questions  relating  to  the 
right  of  membership  in  an  incorporated  religious  associa- 
tion, where  no  civil  or  i)roperty  right  is  involved.  Man- 
damus will  not  lie  to  compel  the  association  to  restore  the 
applicant  to  membershi]).  State  ex  rel  v  Cummins,  171  lud. 
112. 

This  writ  cannot  be  granted  to  restore  the  persons  expelled 
from  membership  in  a  religious  society,  and  the  court  will 
not  in(iuire  whether  such  expulsion  was  regular  and  justified 
by  the  facts.  The  court  will  not  revise  the  action  of  an 
ecclesiastical  tribunal  in  such  cases.  State  ex  rel  Soares  v 
Hebrew  Cong.  .SI  La.  Ann.  20.5. 

Minister,  Reinstatement.  If  ecclesiastical  tribunals  have 
been  provide<l  for  the  trial  of  ecclesiastical  questions,  civil 


MANDAMCS  ;;il 

courts,  in  tlic  cxciciso  of  their  «]iscreliuii,  will  uot  iriaut  Ji 
writ  of  inaiulaiinis  to  restore  a  rejette*!  minister  to  his  oflSce 
and  funttions,  before  a  final  derision  has  been  had  by  the 
church  authorities.  State  ex  rel  McNeill  v  Bibl)  St.  (Mi.,  84 
Ala.  23. 

Where  the  minister  of  an  endowed  dissenting  mcM^ting- 
house  had  been  exj)ene(l  by  a  majority  of  the  congi-ej^ation 
the  court  refused  a  mandamus  to  restore  him  ai>iili(Hl  for 
to  enable  him  to  justify  his  conduct,  it  appearing  that  he 
had  not  complied  with  all  the  requisites  necessary  to  give 
him  a  i)rima  facie  title.  Kex  v  Jotham,  3  T.  Kep.  (Kng.)  577. 

The  power  of  the  civil  courts  to  restore  by  nuiiulamus  a 
party  who  has  been  wrongfully  removed  from  an  ecclesias- 
tical or  spiritual  ottlce,  is  well  established  when  the  tem- 
poral rights,  stipends,  or  emoluments  are  connected  with 
or  annexed  to  such  office,  which  belong  to  the  incumbent. 
But  the  courts  are  powerless  to  interfere  where  there  are 
no  fixed  emoluments,  stipends,  or  temporal  rights  connected 
with  the  office,  where  it  is  j)urely  ecclesiastical.  State  ex  rel 
McNeill  V  Bibb  Street  Church,  84  Ala.  23. 

A  minister  who  had  been  excluded  by  the  society  from  the 
ministerial  office,  functions,  and  privileges  sought  a  writ 
of  nuuidamus  to  compel  his  restoration,  but  it  was  <lenied, 
it  not  appearing  that  there  ^^ere  any  fees  or  emoluments 
attached  to  the  office,  t'nion  Church  v  Sanders,  1  Houston 
(T)el.»   100. 

Man<lamus  will  not  lie  to  compel  the  reinstatement  of  a 
minister  who  has  been  suspended  from  his  office  on  the 
ground  that  he  had  no  pro]»er  notice  of  trial,  where  it 
appears  that  he  had  actual  notice  of  the  time  and  place  of 
trial;  and  was  present  with  his  coun.sel  aiul  participated 
therein.  Demp.sey  v  Noi'ih  ilichigan  ronference,  Wesleyan 
Methodist  Connection  of  America,  1)8  Mich.  444. 

Special  Election.  At  an  election  held  by  a  I'rotestant  Ejiis- 
copal  society  the  rector  pi-csiding  declared  ten  persons 
elected  as  churchwardens  and  vestrymen.  Subsetiueiilly 
seven  of  these  persons  were  (tush'd  fi-oni  offirc,  it  a]»peariii^ 


;;i"j        Tin:  cinii.  \.\\y  A\h  Tin-:  ciichcfi 

(hat  the  rector  li:i<I  rccciviMl  ciiougli  illegal  voles  to  (•liaiig(^ 
the  result.  A  iiiaiidanius  was  granted  directing  th(!  rector 
to  join  in  a  special  election  for  the  j)nrj)ose  of  filling  IIk* 
vacancy  caused  by  the  ouster;  and  a  referee  was  af)poiiite(l 
to  supervise  the  special  election.  I'eople  ex  rel  Fleming  v 
Hart,  .".(;  St.  Kep.  (N.  Y.)  874,  21  N.  Y.  Supp.  07r5. 

Trustees,  Title.  It  was  held  that  mandamus  was  the  ])roj»er 
remedy  under  the  Maryland  statute  to  determine  the  title  to 
the  (►ttice  of  trustee  of  a  church.    Clayton  v  Carey,  4  Md.  2(1. 

Vestry.  Mandamus  is  not  a  proi)er  remedy  to  restore  a 
rightful  vestry  to  the  possession  of  church  property  wrong- 
fully withheld.    Smith  v  Krb,  4  Gill.  (Md.)  4:37. 

Vestry,  Duty  to  Attend  Meeting.  In  People  ex  rel  Kenney 
V  Winans,  21)  St.  Kep.  (N.  Y.)  (")51,  a  writ  of  numdamus  was 
granted  on  the  application  of  the  rector  to  compel  certain 
vestrymen  to  attend  a  meeting  of  the  vestry. 


MASSES 

Defined,  313. 

Described,  313. 

Not  a  superstitious  use,  313. 

See  Also  Prayers  for  the  Dead. 

Defined.  The  mass,  actonliny;  to  Webster's  International 
Dictionary,  is  '*the  sacrifice  in  the  sacrament  of  the  euchar- 
ist,  or  the  consecration  and  oblation  of  tlic  host."  It  is  a 
public  service,  a  public  act  of  worship,  by  which,  according 
to  the  tenets  of  the  Ronuin  Catholic  Church,  the  priest  who 
celebrates  it  "helps  tlie  living  and  obtains  rest  for  the  dead." 
Coleman  v  O'Leary,  114  Ky.  388. 

Described.  The  saying  of  mass  is  a  ceremonial  celebrated 
by  the  priest  in  open  church,  where  all  wlio  choose  may  be 
present  and  participate  therein.  Il  is  a  soh'mn  and  imj)ies- 
sive  ritual,  from  which  many  draw  spiritual  solace,  guid- 
ance, and  instruction.  It  is  religions  in  its  form  and  in  its 
teaching,  and  clearly  comes  within  that  class  ol  trusts  or 
uses  denominated  in  law  as  charitable.  And,  while  the 
effect  of  these  services  upon  the  mendxMs  of  the  church  is 
impressive  and  beneficial,  the  money  expended  for  the  cele- 
brations thereof  is  of  benefit  to  the  clergy,  and  is  upheld  and 
maintained  for  this  reason,  as  one  of  the  cherished  objects 
of  religious  uses.    Webster  v  Sughrow,  (I!)  N.  II.  ;1S<>. 

Not  a  Superstitious  Use.  Saying  masses  for  the  souls  of 
the  dead  is  a  ceremony  nnivei-sally  observed  in  the  Komaii 
Catholic  Church,  and  a  becpu'st  foi-  that  i)ur|»ose  cannot  be 
said  to  be  for  suj)erstitions  uses,  it  being  one  of  the  articles 
of  the  Roman  (^atholic  faith  which  has  been  adopted  by 
millions  of  people  through  the  civili/ed  world  as  a  part  of 
their  religious  beliel'.      lliigennievcr   v    II;insciiii,iii.   J    hem. 

( X.  y. )  ST. 

313 


MEETINGS 

By-laws,  314. 

Chairman,  314. 

Majority,  314. 

Notice,  315. 

Quorum,  315. 

Silence  on  taking  vote,  effect,  316. 

By-Laws.  A  by-law  made  by  one  meeting  of  the  society  to 
govern  the  i)roceeding.s  of  futnre  meetings  is  inoi)erative 
beyond  the  pleasnre  of  the  society  acting  by  a  majority  vote 
at  any  regular  meeting.  The  power  of  the  society  derived 
from  its  charter  and  the  laws  under  which  it  was  organ- 
ized, to  enact  by-laws  is  continuous,  residing  in  all  regular 
meetings  of  the  society  so  long  as  it  exists.  Any  meeting 
could  by  a  majority  vote  modify  or  repeal  the  laws  of  a 
previous  meeting,  and  no  meeting  could  bind  a  subsequent 
one  by  irrepealable  acts  or  rules  of  procedure.  The  power 
to  enact  is  a  power  to  repeal;  and  a  by-law  requiring  a  two- 
thirds  vote  of  members  present  to  alter  or  amend  the  laws 
of  the  society,  may  itself  be  altered,  amended,  or  repealed 
by  the  same  power  which  enacted  it.  A  majority  may  act 
in  such  a  case.  Kichardson  v  Union  Congregational  Society. 
58  N.  H.  187. 

Chairman.  The  election  of  a  moderator  of  a  parish  meet- 
ing will  be  valid,  though  the  meeting  was  called  to  order, 
and  the  votes  were  received  and  declared,  by  a  private  \rdr- 
ishioner  who  assumed  that  authority  to  himself.  Jones  v 
Gary,  0  Mo.  448. 

Majority.  At  a  church  meeting,  eitlier  regular  or  special, 
called  with  proper  notice,  the  vote  of  the  majority  is  bind- 
ing upon  the  congregation.  There  is  a  distinction  between 
a  corporate  act  to  be  done  by  a  definite  number  of  persons, 
and  one  to  be  i)erformed  by  an   indefinite  nund)er;   in  the 

314 


MEETINGS  :\\:> 

first  case  Jio  act  can  be  done  unless  a  majority  of  the  whole 
body  are  j)resent ;  in  the  second,  a  niaj<jrity  of  those  who 
appear  may  act.  Craig  v  First  Tresbyterian  (Munch,  S8  I'a. 
St.  42. 

A  majority  of  an  unincorporated  religious  society  may 
direct  and  control  the  disposition  of  real  estate  belonging 
to  it,  notice  of  the  meeting  at  which  such  action  is  taken 
having  been  given  to  the  members  of  the  society.  Where  it 
apj)eared  that  tlie  business  meetings  of  the  society  were 
invariably  hebt  in  the  evening  and  were  called  by  announce- 
ment to  the  children  at  the  school  connected  with  the  society, 
and  by  the  ringing  of  a  bell,  and  it  was  shown  that  the  usual 
notice  was  given  of  the  meeting  in  question  ;  that  in  addition 
thereto,  a  written  notification  was  carried  round  to  most  of 
the  members,  and  that  none  of  tho.se  resisting  the  action 
taken  claimed  that  they  did  not  know  that  the  meeting  was 
being  held,  it  was  held  that  the  notice  was  sufficient.  Hub- 
bard V  German  Catholic  Congregation,  34  la.  31. 

Notice.  Notice  of  a  meeting  of  the  mend)ers  of  a  church 
to  vote  upon  conveying  the  church  ])roperty  is  snllicicnt 
if  it  is  given  in  accordance  with  the  church  rules.  Jones  v 
Sacramento  Avenue  Methodist  Ki)isco]»al  Cliurch,  IDS  111. 
G2G. 

The  society  had  not  adopted  any  by-law  or  vote  by  which 
meetings  were  to  be  called.  No  assessors  were  appointed  as 
authorized  by  the  statute,  and  the  directors  did  not  a]»point 
any  meetings.  In  the  absence  of  assessors,  or  committee 
authorized  to  call  meetings  of  the  society,  the  statute  author- 
ized a  justice  of  the  peace  to  call  a  meeting.  A  meeting 
called  by  the  clerk  on  the  application  of  four  nuMnbers  of 
the  society  was  held  to  be  irregular  under  the  stattite,  and 
a  vote  at  a  subse<pient  meeting,  also  iiregnlarly  called, 
confirming  the  action  of  the  jtrevious  meeting,  was  void. 
Wiggin  V  First  Freewill  Bajjtist  Church,  Lowell,  S  Mete. 
(Mass.)  ;;()1. 

ftuorum.  ''The  rnle  of  the  coiiiinon  law  seems  t()  bo  thai 
\\  heie  a  body   is  coinposcd   of  an    iiHlcliiiite  inunbci*  of  per- 


;!i(;        'riii;  <"i\  ii>  law  and  'iiii;  cihk*!! 

s(tiis  ;i  (|ii()niiii,  for-  the  jtiirposcs  of  clt'clioiis  :iiiil  Mtliii;^ 
npon  oIIm'i-  (|iit'sl ions,  wliich  re(|uire  the  Naiiction  of  tlu; 
iiicmlx'rs,  coiisisls  of  those  who  iisscinldc  :if  any  nieeliiif^ 
rcf^nlaily  called  and  warned,  althouj^h  such  nnnd)er  may  be 
a  niiiiorily  of  the  whole,  in  which  case  a  majority  of  those 
who  assend)le  may  elect,  unless  there  is  a  diirerent  rule 
established  by  statnte  or  valid  by-law."  34  Cyc.  1127,  note, 
(^noted  in  Barton  v  Fitzi)atrick,  05  S.  (Ala.)  390. 

Silence  on  Taking-  Vote,  Effect,  ^\'here  a  society  is  com- 
posed of  an  indefinite  nund)er  of  jtersons,  a  majority  of  tho.se 
who  appear  at  a  regular  meeting  constitute  a  bo<ly  to  trans- 
act business.  The  presumption  is  that  all  the  mendjers  i>res- 
ent  who  observe  silence  when  a  question  is  put  concnr  with 
the  majority  of  those  who  actnally  vote,  that  is,  if  the 
question  be  put  audibly  and  explicitly.  Worrell  v  First 
Presby.  Ch.  23  N.  J.  Eq.  9G,  citing  Angell  and  Ames,  sees. 
497,  499. 


MEMBERS 

Admission,  effect  of  by-laws,  317. 

Baptist,  powers  of  congregation,  318. 

Dismissal,  318. 

Dues,  effect  of  nonpayment,  318. 

Equality,  318. 

Excommunication,  effect,  318. 

Expulsion,  319. 

Expulsion,  damages,  321. 

Expulsion,  evidence  required,  321. 

Expulsion,  notice,  322. 

Expulsion,  rules,  notice,  323. 

General  duties,  323. 

How  constituted,  323. 

Judicial  control,  324, 

Law  governing,  324. 

Letters  of  dismission,  effect  of,  324. 

Liability  for  debts,  324. 

Powers,  325. 

Qualifications,  how  determined,  325. 

Relation  to  society,  320. 

Rights,  326. 

Stated  attendant,  effect  of  nonat tendance,  327, 

Status,  how  determined,  327. 

Town  society,  327. 

Transfer  by  Legislature,  328. 

Withdrawal,  328. 

Withdrawal,  effect,  328. 

Admission,  Effect  of  By-Laws.  The  charter  of  Die  .soi-icty 
regulated  the  admission  of  inciiihcrs.  This  provision  was 
subscqiKMitly  rcjicalcd,  and  the  society  was  atithori/.ed  to 
make  by-laws  relative  to  the  adniissioii  of  meiiibei-s.  IJylaws 
were  adopted  aj)i)licable  alike  to  existing  as  well  as  future 
members.  It  was  held  Ihat  a  ]»erson  who  was  a  inendier  of 
the  society  uuder  tlie  provisions  of  their  charter  ceased  to 

317 


::iK        Tiiio  ('i\n.  LAW  AM)  Tin:  ("iiri:«  ii 

1k!  ;l  liK'iiilx'i-  by  i'ailiiij;  to  coiiijily  wilh  (In;  coiidilioiis  of  the 
by-laws.    Taylor  v  Edsoii,  4  CuhIi.  (MawH.)  522. 

A  by-law  ])rovi<l('(I  tbaf  new  iiKMiiIicrs  coubl  b<*  added  oidy 
by  a  vote  of  the  coii;;rejjjatioii,  and  another  by  hiw  reiiuired 
a  notice  of  a  special  meeting  to  state  tlie  object  of  it.  Per- 
sons eh'cted  at  a  special  nieetiii}^  without  an  announcement 
of  snch  intended  action  contained  in  tlie  notice  of  the  meet- 
ing were  not  regular  members  and  had  not  been  duly  elected. 
Gray  v  (Miristian  Society,  1:57  Mass.  :{2J). 

Baptist,  Powers  of  Congregation.  The  e.xclusive  jx^wer  to 
admit  and  exclude  members  lies  in  tlie  local  congregations, 
and  associations  have  no  power  to  reverse  or  review  the 
action  of  the  local  churches  as  to  its  members,  nor  to  rein- 
state a  member  who  has  been  excluded  by  any  local  church. 
Igleliart  v  Kowe,  20  Ky.  Law  Kep.  S21. 

Dismissal.  A  minister  assunie<l  to  dismiss  members  of  tlie 
church  without  a  hearing  or  trial.  It  was  held  that  the 
action  of  the  minister  was  nugatory.  Burke  v  Roper,  7!) 
Ala.  138. 

Dues,  Effect  of  Nonpayment.  Where  the  by-laws  of  a  mem- 
bership coi'poration  i>rovided  that  the  non])ayment  of  dues 
shall  render  the  delinquent  member  liable  to  expulsion,  he 
retains  his  membership  until  corporate  action  is  taken. 
Davis  V  Cong.  Beth  Tephila  Israel,  40  A.  I).  (X.  Y.)  424. 

Equality.  Each  member  of  a  church  organization,  or  of 
any  other  voluntary  association,  is  the  equal  of  every  otJier 
member,  and  has  the  absolute  right,  which  the  courts  will 
protect,  to  have  the  property  controlled  and  administered 
according  to  its  organic  plan,  and  to  participate  in  its  affairs 
in  harmony  therewith.  Clark  v  Brown,  108  S.  W.  421 
(Texas  I. 

Excommunication,  Effect.  Civil  courts  cannot  decide  who 
ought  to  be  members  of  the  church,  nor  whether  the  excom- 
municated have  been  justly  or  unjustly,  regularly  or  irregu- 
larly cut  off  from  the  body  of  the  church.  We  must  take  the 
fact  of  exi)ulsion  as  conclusive  ])roof  tliat  the  jiersons  ex- 
l)elled  are  not  iiow  nuMubers  of  the  repudiating  cliurch  :  for. 


whether  right  or  wrong,  tlie  act  of  excoiiiiiniiilcatioii  must. 
as  to  the  fact  of  membership,  be  hiw  to  the  court.  Shanuoii 
V  Frost,  42  Ky.  253. 

Excommunicated  members,  wliose  names  liave  Ixmmi.  ]»y  the 
valid  action  of  the  church,  expunged  from  the  roll  of  mem- 
bers, cannot  stand  foi'  and  represent  nuMubers.  They  are 
not  of  the  same  class.  Nance  v  Bushby,  J)l  Tenn.  :!0:;.  In 
this  case  it  was  alleged  lliat  mcmlters  were  excommunicated 
without  notice  or  any  opportunity  to  be  heard.  The  court 
asserted  the  rule  that  "no  man's  civil  or  i»r<tpcrty  i-iglits  oi- 
privileges  shall  be  alVccted  oi-  adjudicated  without  an  opjior- 
tunity  to  be  fully  and  fairly  heard." 

Expulsion.  A  mendier  cannot  be  expelled  liy  the  consistory 
without  the  consent  of  the  congregation.  The  jiower  of  the 
consistory  is  limited  to  the  exclusion  of  a  member  from  the 
communion  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the  ]»ower  of  excom- 
munication is  vested  in  the  congregation.  Church  v  Seibert, 
3  Pa.  St.  282. 

Several  persons  about  1874  organized  this  society,  and 
made  preparations  to  build  a  church  edilice.  The  i)lainliir, 
one  of  the  incorporators,  had  general  chaige  of  the  erection 
of  Ihe  building,  .uid  in  addition  to  his  original  subscription, 
advanced  about  .81,400  to  complete  the  building,  also  giving 
his  time  and  services  to  the  enteri)rise.  For  many  years 
thereafter  he  was  one  of  tlu'  most  intluential  and  devoted 
members  of  the  society.  "Without  previous  notice,  with  no 
hint  of  i\uy  charges  to  be  that  day  made  against  him.  he  was 
on  Sunday,  Ajiril  .■>,  181(2,  hastily,  unjustly,  and  ruthlessly 
excommunicated,  under  the  leadeishi|»  of  his  pastor,  by  a 
pitiful  vote  of  nine  inend>ei*s  out  of  a  total  ol'  alioiit  titty, 
and  this  was  done  in  pursuance  of  a  preconcerted,  secrt't  cau- 
cus agreement  of  the  past<»r  and  a  few  niend>eis,  t'litered 
into  the  night  pi-evions  thereto."  Tiie  rouit  said  thai  every 
jterson  uniting  with  a  r>a|)tist  chur«-h  imjtliedly  or  e.\]U'essly 
covenants  obedience  to  its  laws,  and  by  that  co\»'nant  this 
appellant  is  bound.  4'lie  (onil  i  liararteri/,c(|  the  e\|inlsi(in 
as  a  jtetty,  unfair,  and  unjust  e\  hi  bit  ion  ol  leligious  t  vrann\ . 


;!L'o        'nir:  cinii.  law  and  'i'iii;  cm  jirii 

The  pliiinlill".  Mllcr  liriccii  years  riom  the  •M-eclioii  of  the 
church,  and  alter  his  expulsion,  brought  an  action  to  estah- 
lisli  a  chiini  against  the  society  for  the  amount  advanced 
by  him  in  (he  erection  of  tlie  building.  The  court  hehl, 
among  other  things,  that  his  riglit  of  action  was  barred  by 
the  statute  of  limitations.  He  was  therefore  not  entitled  to 
recover  the  amount  due  him.  Dees  v  Moss  Point  Baj)tist 
Church,  17  Ho.  Kep.  (Miss.)  1. 

The  trustees  expelled  a  member  of  the  church  without 
notice  to  him.  It  was  held  that  no  projjerty  rights  were 
involved  in  the  expulsion,  and  therefore  the  civil  courts  could 
not  interfere.  An  injunction  was  refused.  Pinke  v  Born- 
hold,  8  Out.  L.  Ee.  575. 

A  Roman  Catholic  was  married  by  a  Protestant  minister. 
He  was  thereupon  ipso  facto  excommunicated,  and  ceased  to 
be  a  Catholic.  Barry  v  Order  of  Catholic  Knights,  Wis.  119 
Wis.  3(52. 

If  an  incorporated  religious  society  at  a  regular  meeting 
called  for  the  purpose  of  revising  the  membership  of  the 
society  votes  under  and  in  accordance  with  an  article  of  its 
Constitution,  that  certain  persons  whose  names  are  crossed 
off  from  the  list  of  members  have  worked  against  the  inter- 
ests of  the  society,  that  they  are  for  that  reason  expelled, 
and  if  the  persons  thus  dealt  with  had  proper  notice  and 
opportunity  to  be  heard,  the  action  of  the  society  is  final  and 
cannot  be  revised  by  showing  in  another  tribunal  that  these 
members  had  not  in  fact  worked  against  the  interests  of  the 
society.  Canadian  Religious  Association  v  Parmenter,  ISO 
Mass.  415. 

The  law  of  New  York  does  not  allow  a  governing  body 
arbitrarily  to  expel  members  of  an  incorporated  church 
where  i)roperty  rights  are  involved.  Holcombe  v  Leavitt, 
124  N.  Y.  S.  980. 

A  person  was  expelled  from  a  church  because  he  voted  the 
Democratic  ticket.  In  State  v  Rogers.  128  X.  C.  TuVk  it  was 
held  that  such  expulsion  was  not  an  oft'ense  under  the  statute 
l)i-()liibiting  the  oppression  of  any  qualified  voter  because  of 


MEMBERS  321 

the  vote  s\icli  voter  may  or  nmy  not  have  cast  in  any  election. 
While  he  may  have  felt  mortified  or  hnniiliated  in  beinj^ 
excluded  from  the  fellowship  of  his  associates  in  the  exercise 
of  the  rites  of  that  body  of  Christian  believers,  holding  the 
same  creed  and  acknowledging  the  same  ecclesiastical 
authority,  and  to  that  extent  injured  and  oppressed,  yet  he 
suffered  no  loss  of  property  or  gain ;  nor  was  he  in  any  way 
restrained  of  his  liberty  or  otherwise  controlled  in  the  exer- 
cise of  his  personal  con<luct.  See  also  Injunction  and  Man- 
damus. 

Expulsion,  Damages.  The  plaint  ill'  hiouglit  an  action 
against  the  trustees  of  the  church  for  damages  resulting 
from  an  alleged  unlawful  expulsion  from  the  society.  By 
the  act  of  organizing  under  the  statute  the  church  becomes 
a  civil  corporation.  Usually,  there  is  a  religious  society  con- 
nected with  the  church.  The  church  has  its  members  who 
are  sujiixised  to  hold  certain  beliefs  and  subscribe  some  cove- 
nant with  each  other,  if  such  is  the  usage  of  the  denomina- 
tion to  which  the  church  is  attached.  The  church  is  not  in- 
corporated, and  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  tempo- 
ralities. It  does  not  control  the  property  or  the  trusees;  it 
can  receive  anybody  into  the  society,  and  can  expel  anybotly 
from  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the  corporation  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  church  except  as  it  provides  for  the  church 
wants.  It  cannot  alter  the  church  faith  or  covenant,  it  can- 
not receive  mend>ers,  it  cannot  expel  mend)ers,  it  cannot 
prevent  the  church  receiving  or  expelling  whomsoever  that 
body  shall  see  tit  to  receive  or  ex]>el.  It  was  held  that  the 
action  could  not  be  maintained.  The  corporation  was  sued 
for  a  tort,  which  it  neither  committed,  nor  had  the  jtower  to 
prevent.  Whatever  was  done  to  the  injury  of  the  plaintiff 
was  done  by  the  i-eligious  society  over  which,  in  this  respect, 
the  corporation  had  nc)  control.  Harbison  v  First  Presby 
terian  Society,  4(1  Conn.  ~}'2\).  See  also  Ilanlin  v  Ba]>tist 
Church,  ni    Mich.    i:57. 

Expulsion,  Evidence  Required.     While  the  civil  courts  will 
stmliouslv  give  rull  ciVcct  to  tlic  Judgment  of  :ni  ecclesiasti<-al 


:v2'2        Tin:  ('i\  il  law  and  tiii:  ciiii^cii 

coiii'l  wIh'Ii  iiijillcrs  cci-lcsiMst  i(;il  only  ;irc  involvcil,  wlini 
civil  rijilils  .is  lo  property  jirc  invnUcd  tin-  ciNJl  conrls  will 
insist  tli:il  :in  accnsjilioii  be  iiijidc,  lliiit  notice  he  jjivcii, 
and  an  ()j)p<>rtnnity  to  i)ro«ln«o  witnesses  and  defeinl  Ixi 
afforded,  befoie  tliey  will  «rive  etfect  to  an  expiilsion  or  hus- 
pension  of  the  kind  here  attempted.  West  Koslikonon*^ 
Conj^.  V  Otteson,  SO  Wis.  ()2,  eitinjj;  llotlinan's  Kcelesiastical 
Law,  27(5,  277.  In  the  above  case  one  faction  assumed  to 
declare  another  faction  sns]>ended  or  expelle<l,  without 
notice,  without  hearing,  and  without  evidence.  Such  action 
was  held  to  have  no  effect  ou  the  rights  of  the  members 
included  in  the  resolution  of  exi>ulsion. 

A  by-law  of  a  religious  society  ]»i'ovided  that  if  a  per- 
son should  fail  regularly  to  attend  i)ublic  worship  for  one 
year,  or  during  the  same  period  should  fail  to  contribute 
regularly  for  the  sui)i>ort  of  the  church,  his  uame  might  be 
dropped  from  the  list  of  members.  It  was  held  that  his  name 
could  not  be  droi)ped,  except  by  a  vote  of  the  congi-egation. 
Gray  v  Christian  Society,  137  Mass,  329, 

Expulsion,  Notice.  For  a  note  on  the  right  to  expel  with- 
out notice  a  member  of  a  benefit  or  benevolent  society  see 
Ryan  v  Cudahy,  157  111,  108. 

The  society  received  a  conveyance  of  laud  on  which  it 
erected  a  valuable  church.  A  controversy  arose  between 
two  factions  in  the  church,  involving  the  title  and  possession 
of  the  church  })roperty.  The  complainants  claimed  to  be  the 
only  adherents  of  the  original  society,  and  that  the  defend- 
ants were  seceders  therefrom.  Various  acts  w^ere  attributed 
to  defendants,  showing  an  abandonment  of  the  faith  and 
order  of  the  original  Primitive  Baptist  Society;  that  they 
had  assumed  control  of  the  church  property  and  the  right 
to  exercise  spiritual  authority  over  all  members  of  the 
society.  They  had  also  assumed  and  exercised  the  right  to 
expel  certain  members,  including  the  complainants  without 
notice  or  hearing.  It  was  held  that  the  church  had  the 
power  to  determine  for  itself  whether  notice  or  an  oppor- 
tunity to  be  heard  should  be  given  to  the  expelled  members. 


MEMBERS  323 

"They  have  as  a  judicature  adjudj^ed  that  they  had  jurisdic- 
tiou  and  that  the  usage  and  hiw  of  the  church  did  not  de- 
mand other  trial  or  notice  than  such  as  attended  the  public 
action  of  the  diurch.  The  law  of  the  church  ])rovides  for 
no  appeal  to  a  higher  tribunal."  The  complainants,  having 
been  regularly  excommunicated,  had  no  standing  in  the 
court  to  assert  any  title  to  the  i)roi»('rty  conveyed  to  the 
society.     Nance  v  Bnslil)y,  1)1  Tenn.  ;>():5. 

Expulsion,  Rules.  Notice.  A  church  organization  may  make 
rules  by  whicli  the  admission  and  expulsion  of  its  members 
are  to  be  regulate<l,  and  the  members  must  conform  to  these 
rules.  If,  however,  it  has  no  rules  on  the  subject,  those  of 
the  common  law  prevail,  and  before  a  member  can  be  ex- 
pelled notice  must  be  given  him  to  answer  the  charge  made 
against  him,  and  an  opportunity  ottered  to  make  his  de- 
fense, and  an  order  of  exj)ulsion  without  such  notice  and 
opi)ortunity  is  void.    .Jones  v  State,  28  Neb.  4!)r>. 

General  Duties.  Every  person  entering  into  the  (hurch 
imjdiedly  at  least,  if  not  expressly,  covenants  to  conform  to 
the  rules  of  the  church,  and  to  submit  to  its  antliority  and 
discipline,  Lucas  v  Case,  9  Bush  (Ky.),  297.  See  also  Mack 
V  Kime,  129  Ga.  17. 

A  religious  society  usually  adopts  a  constitution,  by-laws, 
and  form  of  government.  A  member,  when  he  enters  the 
organization,  voluntarily  assumes  the  duty  of  obeying  the 
laws  of  the  association.  As  to  all  matters  ]nirely  ecclesias- 
tical, he  is  bound  by  the  decisions  of  the  tribunal  tixed  by 
the  oi'ganization  to  which  he  belongs,  as  an  ai'biter  to 
<letermine  the  disputed  <|uestions  relating  to  matters  pecu- 
liarly within  the  j»i'oviiice  of  the  organization.  Miick  v 
Kime,  12!>  (Ja.  1. 

How  Constituted.  To  constitute  a  member  of  a  ciiurcli  at 
least  two  things  are  essential,  namely,  the  profession  ol  its 
faith,  and  a  submission  to  its  government.  lirooke  v  Shack 
lett  (Carter  v  Wolfe),  VA  (Jratt.  (\'a.»  :W{). 

To  constitute  one  a  mendH'i-  of  a  church,  or  an  individual 
societv   a    member  of  a   general    synodical   organization,   at 


:;2i        Till']  ("i\  iL  i>.\\\  AM)  'I'm:  cm  iicii 

IcMsl  two  tilings  jire  essHCMitial — a  profcsKion  ol'  the  acccph'tl 
faith  and  a  snluiiission  to  its  goveniineiit.  CajKi  v  I'lyiiionlli 
Coiif^rcjfatioTial  Church,  KJO  Wis.  174. 

Judicial  Control.  It  nnist  be  conceded  that  the  courtH  have 
IK)  i»()\\(M'  to  revise  ordinary  acts  of  church  discipline  or  pass 
upon  controverted  rights  of  niend>ership ;  but  while  the  courts 
cannot  decide  who  onglit  to  ])c  inend)ers,  tliey  nuiy  incjuii-e 
whctlier  any  disjtuted  act  of  tlie  chnrcli  affecting  proj)erty 
rights  was  the  act  of  the  churcli  or  of  persons  having  no  au- 
thority,   (lewin  v  Mt.  Pilgrim  Baptist  Church,  lOG  Ala.  345. 

Law  Governing.  Mendjershij)  in  a  church  is  an  ecclesias- 
tical matter  dei)ending  iii)on  the  law  of  the  church  itself. 
Jackson  v  IIo])kins.  78  A.  4.   (Md.) 

Letters  of  Dismission,  Effect  of.  Certificates  of  church 
membership  and  dismission,  coninionly  spoken  of  as  letters 
of  dismission,  do  not,  under  the  Presbyterian  system,  ipso 
facto,  terminate  the  membership  of  the  person  receiving 
them  in  the  particular  church  granting  them.  To  give  them 
this  effect  they  must  have  been  acted  upon  and  the  holder 
have  been  received  into  some  other  particular  church  of  this 
denomination.  Kor  do  such  certificates,  ipso  facto,  termi- 
nate the  functions  of  ruling  elders  of  a  Presbyterian  Church. 
First  Presbyterian  Church,  Louisville  v  Wilson,  14  Bush 
(Ky.)  252.    ' 

Liability  for  Debts.  A  judgment  was  recovered  against 
the  second  parish  of  Kittery,  Maine.  Membership  in  the 
parish  w^as  held  to  be  voluntary,  and  the  person  was  at  lib- 
erty to  withdraw  in  the  manner  provided  by  law,  but  he 
continued  liable  for  debts  incurred  on  behalf  of  the  parish 
prior  to  his  withdrawal.  The  seceding  member  ceased  to 
be  liable  for  parish  debts.  The  remedy  for  the  judgment 
creditor  was  limited  to  the  levy  on  property  of  persons  who 
were  members  of  the  parish  at  the  time  of  the  rendition  of 
the  judgment,  or,  at  most,  at  the  commencement  of  the 
action.    Fernald  v  Lewis,  (5  Me.  264. 

The  society  having  become  indebted,  a  judgment  was 
obtained  against  it,  and  occupied  property  was  sold  and 


MEMBIOKS  325 

applied  on  the  judgiiient.  An  ellort  was  then  made  to  sell 
the  property  actually  occupied  for  church  pur])oses  to  satisfy 
the  deficiency  judgment.  The  court  refused  to  permit  this 
sale,  but  declined  to  enjoin  the  collection  of  the  deficiency. 
Thereupon  an  action  was  brought  by  the  original  plaintiff 
against  the  uiend)ers  of  the  society  as  individuals  to  collect 
the  deficiency  on  the  former  judgment.  It  was  held  that 
such  members  of  a  religious  society  were  not  individually 
liable  for  its  debts,  unless  such  members  had  originally  and 
individually  authoriy.ed  the  creation  of  the  debts.  First 
National  Bank,  I'lattsmouth  v  Rector,  5!)  Neb.  77. 

In  Bigelow  v  Congregational  Society,  Middletown,  11  Xt. 
283,  it  was  held  to  be  the  duty  of  the  society  to  api»ropriate 
its  property  for  the  payment  of  its  debts,  and  in  case  of  a 
neglect  to  do  so  and  the  property  is  waste<l,  individual  mem- 
bers may  be  liable.  A  meetinghouse  is  not  liable  to  be 
taken  in  execution  for  the  debts  of  such  society. 

Powers.  The  male  members  of  the  church  nrc  invested 
with  no  visitorial  or  controlling  jjowcr  ovci-  liic  minister 
or  trustees,  or  interest  in  the  jn-ojx'rty  of  tiic  corporation; 
nor  with  any  authority,  except  in  the  case  of  selling,  or 
leasing,  or  amending  the  articles,  when  the  consent  of  two 
thirds  is  re(piired. 

The  right  of  the  ministers  in  charge  to  the  use  and  en- 
joyment of  the  cliurch  (which  includes  all  the  uses  to  which 
it  can  be  a])plied  for  religious  jmrposesi  is  expressly  re- 
served to  them ;  and  the  economy  and  management  of  the 
fiscal  affairs,  the  receii»ts  and  disbuisements,  are  as  explic- 
itly assigned  to  those  appointed  for  th.it  pui-pose  under  the 
disci])line  of  the  church.    Tartei-  v  (iiltl»s.  21  M<1.  ;'.23. 

Qualifications,  How  Determined.  I'lider  a  Michi^inn  statute 
relating  to  the  incorjioration  of  religi«»Ms  societies,  it  was 
held  that  the  statute  indicated  who  might  be  inend»ers  of 
the  corporation,  but  did  not  determine  the  (piMlitications 
of  church  nuMubers,  or  the  mode  of  their  admission.  Those 
questions  are  i)rimarily,  at  least,  of  <*cclesiastical  cogni- 
zance,  and   both    ])arties    must    tirsi    e\li;nist    th(>    renie<lies 


:{i.'<;        Till-:  cinii.  law  a.\i>  'I'iii;  cm  i;rii 

oIlVi'tMl  l),v  111*' ('((Icsiiisl  icjil  l)»)(ly  hcloic  tin;  coiiris  will  con- 
sider the  questions  involve*!.  Uncttncr  v  Frazer,  100  Mich.  171). 

Relation  to  Society.  TIm'  rchilions  of  ii  mcinher  to  his 
church  are  not  conlractnal.  Xo  hond  of  contract,  express 
or  implied,  connects  him  with  his  coniniunion  or  dcterniincs 
his  riglits.  Cliurcli  rclationsliiji  stands  ujion  an  altogcthei- 
higher  plane,  and  church  nieniber.ship  is  not  to  he  compared 
to  that  resulting  from  connection  with  mere  human  associa- 
tions for  i)rotit,  i)leasure,  or  culture.  The  church  under- 
takes to  deal  only  with  spiritual  interests.  Admission  to 
its  fold  is  prescribed  alone  by  the  church  professing  to  act 
only  upon  the  AVord  of  God.    Nance  v  Bushby,  f)l  Tenn.  30;j. 

AVhen  a  i)erson  becomes  a  member  of  a  church  he  becomes 
so  upon  the  condition  of  submission  to  its  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction,  and  however  much  he  may  be  dissatisfied  witli 
the  exercise  of  that  jurisdiction,  he  has  no  right  to  invoke 
the  supervisory  power  of  a  civil  court  so  long  as  none  of  his 
civil  rights  are  invaded.  This  doctrine  inevitably  results 
from  that  total  sejiaration  between  church  and  state  which 
exists  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States,  and  is  essential 
to  the  full  enjoyment  of  the  guaranteed  rights  of  American 
citizenship.  White  Lick  Quart.  Meet,  of  Friends  v  White 
Lick  Quart.  Meet,  of  Friends,  89  Ind.  136. 

One  joining  an  organized  society,  such  as  a  church  hav- 
ing a  rejjresentative  form  of  government  under  the  super- 
vision and  control  of  judicatories  known  as  church  courts, 
agrees  by  the  act  of  membership  to  abide  by  the  rules, 
orders,  and  judgments  of  such  courts  properly  made,  and 
consents  that  whatever  rights  and  privileges  he  may  possess 
as  a  member  shall  be  controlled  by  such  rules,  orders,  and 
judgments.    Hayes  v  Manning,  172  S.  W^  (Mo.)  897  (902). 

Rights.  Every  participant  in  a  voluntarj'  organization 
has  the  absolute  right,  which  the  courts  will  protect,  to  have 
its  i)roperty  controlled  and  administered  according  to  its 
organic  plan  and  to  ])articipate  in  its  affairs  in  harmony 
therewith.  Spiritual  and  Philoso])hical  Temple  v  \'incent, 
105  N.  AV.  (Sup.  Ct.  AVis.)  IOlM;.  127  Wis.  9;*,. 


MKMHICKS  .'?L>T 

Where  a  society  has  heconic  incoi-poraliMl  for  the  purpose 
of  inaintainiiig;  religious  worshij),  I  lie  rights  of  a  iiieinher  of 
the  corporation  are  one  thing  and  his  rights  as  a  nuMiihci- 
of  the  church  worshijiiug  in  the  huihling  owne<l  by  llie  cor- 
poration may  be  quite  another  thing.  His  riglits  in  tlie 
corporation  and  as  coritorator  will  (IcikmkI  ex«Iusi\('iy  u|>on 
the  law  creating  the  coi-jtoration.  Nance  v  IJushby.  *.tl 
Tenn.  'AO'A. 

Stated  Attendant,  Effect  of  Nonattendance.  A  |»erson  who 
for  more  than  a  year  had  ceased  to  be  a  stated  attendant 
at  the  church  of  which  lie  had  been  a  mend)er,  and  whose 
name  had  been  dropped  from  the  roll  of  members,  was  held 
not  entitled  to  maintain  an  action  against  the  society  or  its 
trustees  to  restrain  an  alleged  illegal  use  of  the  church 
property.  Smith  v  Bowers,  57  App.  I)iv.  (N.  Y.)  252, 
afhrmed  171  N.  Y.  (!(»!>.  As  to  the  effect  of  withdrawal  see 
also  Cammeyer  v  I'nited  German  Lutheran  (Miui-ches,  2 
Sandf.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  208. 

Status,  How  Determined.  In  a  case  of  a  religious  t(»ngre- 
gatiou,  what  are  the  doctrines,  adherence  to  which  is  a  con- 
dition of  membership,  must  be  determined  by  reference  to 
the  rules,  constitution,  or  by-laws  of  the  congregation. 
Where  a  congregation  in  its  constitution  adopts  certain 
books  as  the  exjjonents  of  its  faith  and  doctrine,  and  there 
subsequently  arise  honest  dilferences  of  opinion  as  to  (he 
interpretation  of  the  statements  of  «loctrine  in  such  books, 
and  the  constitution  is  silent  as  to  such  matter  of  interpre- 
tation, and  ])r()vid('s  no  mode  for  determining  the  ditVerence, 
the  civil  courts  will  not  hohl  that  adherence  to  either  inter- 
))retation  dissolves,  ip.so  facto,  a  member's  connetiion  wiili 
the  congregation,  so  that  he  ceases  to  be  a  mendter  of  tiie 
corporation  it  has  formed  to  hohl  an<l  rontrol  its  pioperty. 
Trustees,  East  Norway  Lake  Norwegian  lOvangernal  Lu- 
theran Church  and  others  v  Halvorson,  12  Minn.  ."»();',. 

Town  Society.  The  society  was  incorporated  in  In()2  i>y 
a  special  act.  Up  to  that  time  tlie  town  acted  as  (»ne  parish, 
and   was  called   the  Coiigiegai  juiial   sociely.     ('ertaiii    prop 


:!L's        'iMii;  ("i\  II.  LAW  AM)  'I'm:  rm  imii 

cil.v  Ii;mI  Itccii  idiivcycMl  to  I  lie  town  loi-  llic  iis(?  of  this  so- 
ciety, and  iu'loic  the  above  act  of  incorporation  the  jiroperty 
was  vestetl  in  the  ('on<!;re<;alional  society.  The  corporation 
was  the  same  society  that  was  known  in  the  town  as  such, 
and  for  whose  benefit  the  land  in  controversy  had  been  con- 
veyed. The  princii>al  effect  of  the  incorporation  was  to 
authorize  the  society  to  act  in  a  parochial  form,  which 
hcfoie  it  had  not  done,  but  had  acted  in  its  public  capacity 
as  a  town.  Any  inhabitant  of  the  town  might,  on  complying 
with  certain  iirescribcd  conditions,  become  a  member  of  the 
society.  The  act  did  not  create  ji  new  corj)oration.  I'ar.sons- 
ticld  v  Dalton.  5  Me.  IMT. 

Transfer  by  Legislature.  In  Tha.xter  v  Jones,  4  Mass.  570, 
it  was  held  that  the  Legislature  might,  under  the  Massa- 
chusetts statute  and  bill  of  rights,  set  off  a  member  of  any 
religious  incorporation  to  another  religious  incorporation, 
whether  of  the  same  or  of  a  different  denomination. 

Withdrawal.  Members  of  a  religious  society  may  volun- 
tarily withdraw  from  it,  and  enter  another  more  consonant 
with  their  views,  but  when  they  do  so  they  must  be  con- 
sidered as  abandoning  to  the  adherents  of  the  original  con- 
stitution their  rights  to  the  property  of  the  society  which 
they  leave.    Manning  v  Shoemaker,  7  Pa.  Sup.  Ct.  375. 

Ceasing  to  attend  the  religious  and  secular  meetings  of  a 
parish,  and  attending  the  worship  and  supporting  the  min- 
isters of  another  denomination,  for  any  length  of  time,  will 
not  alone  amount  to  a  renunciation  of  membership  in  the 
parish  thus  left,  the  only  mode  of  withdrawing,  without  a 
change  of  residence,  being  by  notice  in  writing  under  the 
Maine  statute  of  1821,  Ch.  135.    Jones  v  Gary,  6  Me.  448. 

Withdrawal,  Effect.  To  constitute  a  member  of  any 
church,  two  points  at  least  are  essential;  a  profession  of 
its  faith  and  a  submission  to  its  government.  Persons 
who  withdraw  from  a  church  can  no  longer  be  deemed 
members  of  it,  even  if  continuing  to  profess  the  same  faith 
and  doctrines.    Den  ex  dem.  Day  v  Bolton,  12  N.  J.  L.  20<). 


MENNONITES 

Organization,  329. 

Majority  may  control  propcrtj',  329. 

Organization.  The  several  Memioiiite  conjifregations  of 
Eastern  Pennsj'lvania,  of  which  the  (.\)lel)r<)()k<lale  was  one, 
had  been  associated  in  a  common  ('oiiference  calh'd  Irom 
its  place  of  meeting  the  Franconia  Conference,  which  was 
composed  of  clerical  and  lay  delegates  from  the  several  ion- 
gregations,  and  its  ])nrpose  was  the  general  government  of 
the  church.  In  or  about  the  j'^ear  18i4  a  discnssion  arose 
in  this  Conference  concerning  the  customs  and  nsages  of  tlie 
Mennonite  Church.  One  parly  desired  1o  introduce  varions 
innovations  into  their  mode  of  life  and  method  of  religions 
v;orship,  a  departure  that  was  signalized  l»y  ihe  leader  of 
the  movement,  a  Kev.  John  Overhollzer,  ajtpearing  in  the 
Conference  in  a  coat  of  a  different  cut  from  the  custonniiy 
garb  of  the  Menonnite  ]>ersuasion.  The  discnssion  of  these 
differences  between  the  two  parties,  known  as  tiie  Old  and 
New  Mennonite  Church,  gave  rise  to  great  dissension  in  the 
Conference,  and  finally  culminated  in  1847,  when  the  Over- 
holtzer,  or  New  Party,  fornnilly  withdrew  from  the  Fi-;in- 
conia  Conference,  and  organized  a  new  jndicitory.  The 
schism  extende<l  from  the  Conference  to  its  comitonent  con 
gregations.     T>aiMlis  Appe;il,  lOL'  i'a.  St.  4(17. 

Majority  May  Control  Property.  I'roni  1 7!>()  to  is  17  the 
Menonnite  society  occupied  ])ro|»erly  which  Wiis  nseil  I'oi- 
religious  purj)oses  accoi-ding  to  the  rnles  and  cnstoms  of 
the  sect.  About  the  latter  yeni-  a  schism  occnired.  Tlu> 
majority  and  minority  continued  to  occupy  the  (iMnrh  |»rop- 
erty  alternately  without  fi'iction  for  ;d»ont  twenty  nine 
years.  The  majority  which  ((inliMued  In  jidhere  to  Ihe 
organization,  doctrines.  ;i ml  ih-.m-I  ices  ol'  ihe  s(m  jet y  |iro|tosed 

oJ'.t 


;;;:(>        Tin:  ("i\  IL  law  and  'imii:  (•iiri;(  ii 

t«>  (TitI  ii  new  Immis(*  of  worship  :iimI  olTcrrd  iIm*  iiiiiiority 
llic  rij^lit  lo  (K'cnpy  it  iis  Itcfoi-c,  jiroxidcd  the  minoi-ily  \\()iiM 
not  iiilrodiicc  imisi(;il  iiisj  niinciils  into  tlic  scrvitcs  iioi' 
Miiylliiii;;  else  ol>J('cl  ioimltlc  to  llic  iii;ijoiil  y.  The  iiiiiiotily 
rcCiiscd  (lie  ollVi'  ;ni<l  soiifilit  ;iii  iiijniH-t  i(»ii  rest  r;iiiiiii;^  tlic 
(Icinolil  ion  of  Ww  clinicli  I)iiil<liii<4  niiil  tlif  ci-cct  ion  of  ;i  new 
one,  and  nskcd  tlia(  tlic  minority  mif^lit  Ix'  declared  to  he 
ttMwints  in  eomnion  of  the  iti-opei'ty  witli  the  majority.  It 
was  lield  tliat  the  majority  liad  tlie  ri^ht^  1<»  the  jtossessioii 
and  conti'ol  of  the  ])i'o|>ei'ty  and  that  the  minority  were  only 
tenants  by  sniferance  and  not  tenants  in  coinnion  with  the 
majority.    Landis  Appeal,  102  Ta.  St.  4G7. 


METHODIST  CHURCH  OF  CANADA 

Historical  Sketch,  331. 

Form  of  government,  fixing  status  of  minister,  331. 

Historical  Sketch.  Tin's  clmrch  scjcirated  from  tlu>  Meth- 
odist lCj)iscoi>al  Church  and  was  erected  into  a  distinct 
organization  in  1828.  As  earlj^  as  1804  the  Upper  Canada 
districts  were  inchnh'd  in  the  New  York  Ann\ial  Conference, 
and  continued  as  a  ])art  of  it,  the  same  as  other  districts, 
until  1812,  when  these  districts,  and  also  the  Lower  Canada 
districts,  w'ere  incln(h*d  within  the  (Jenesee  Cotiference.  In 
181(J  the  Lower  Canaihi  districts  were  embraced  within  the 
New  York  and  New  England  Conferences;  in  ISl'O  both 
TTp]>er  and  Lower  (^mada  were  again  included  in  the  (Jene- 
see  Conference,  and  in  the  sanu»  year  the  bisliops  were 
authorized,  with  the  concuri-ence  of  this  Conference,  to 
establish  an  Annual  Coiiferen<e  in  Canada;  and  in  1SL*4  the 
Canada  Conference  included  the  whole  (tf  the  upper  prov- 
ince, and  thus  it  stood  in  1828.  when  erected  into  an  inde- 
I)endent  establishnuMit.  Hasconi  \  Lane,  I'ed.  Cms.  HIS!>, 
(Cir.  Ct.  Dis.  N.  Y.i. 

Form  of  Government,  Fixing  Status  of  Minister.  "The  min- 
isters and  members  of  the  Methodist  Chur<-h  are  incorpo- 
rated by  that  name,  by  an  act  of  tlie  Dominion  Parliament, 
47  Vict.  Ch.  10(},  and  the  niattei-s  invohcd  in  the  acti<in  are 
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  (►f  an  .Vnnuai  Confei-ence.  com- 
l)0.sed  of  the  ministers  within  a  limited  area,  and  an  eipial 
nund)er  of  laymen,  elected  thereto  as  |nd\ided  by  a  code 
of  laws  called  the  I)isci|dine  of  ihe  Chnich.  Aectuding  to 
the  Discipline,  certain  detined  mattei-s  ;ire  considei'jMJ  ;ind 
dis])osed  of  ill  joint  session  (»r  l»otli  minislei-s  and  lavineii; 
but     matlei-s    aU'ecting    the    eliar.itler    and    (piali  li<a  I  ions    of 

331 


'S.V2  Till-:  ("l\'II.  LAW  AM)  Till-:  CJll  KCil 

niiiiislcrs  jirc  iii(|iiirt*(l  into  ;iii<l  disposed  of  in  what  are 
called  niinislerial  sessions;  that  is,  nieetinj^s  composed  of 
ministers  only."  The  Discijiline  provi<les  a  system  of  ap- 
j)eal.  An  Annual  Conference  has  j)ower  to  locate  a  min- 
ister without  his  consent.  A  located  minister  cannot  exer- 
cise the  functions  of  the  ministry,  but  may  if  he  desires, 
be  considered  a  local  j)reacher  subject  to  the  rej^ulations 
allecting  local  preachers.  In  181)4  the  plaintirt"  was  deposed 
from  the  ministry  and  exjjelled  from  the  membership  of  the 
church.  The  judgment  of  expulsion  was  reversed  by  the 
Court  of  Appeals,  a  tribunal  provided  by  the  Discipline. 
The  matter  came  before  the  Annual  Conference  again  in 
1895,  when  the  plaintiff  was  located  at  his  own  request. 
From  this  action  of  the  Annual  Conference  the  plaintiff 
appealed  to  the  Court  of  Appeals,  which  court  reversed  the 
action  of  the  Conference  on  the  ground  that  it  was  extra- 
neous to  any  provision  of  the  Discipline.  In  1897  he  was 
left  without  a  station  at  his  own  request,  and  a  resolution 
was  adopted  by  the  Conference  requesting  him  to  ask  a 
location.  In  1898  the  idaintitf  was  located,  he  still  refus- 
ing to  ask  a  location.  The  plaintiff  appealed  to  the  Court 
of  A])peals  from  the  action  of  the  Conference  of  1898  in 
locating  him,  and  the  ai)peal  was  dismissed.  Considering 
the  foregoing  facts,  the  court  in  Ash  v  Methodist  Church, 
27  Ont.  Ai)p.  Ke  602,  (Canada)  said,  "The  question  whether 
a  minister  is  acceptable  or  inefficient  is  i)eculiarly  one  of 
the  judgment  of  the  Conference,  and  by  the  Discipline  that 
body  is  made  the  sole  judge  on  that  subject." 


METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 

Organization,  333. 

Anti-slavery  control,  335. 

Baltimore  Conference,  335. 

Baltimore  Conference,  sepanition  of  1S44,  338. 

Bible  Society  discontinued,  338. 

Bishop's  authority  to  consolidate  churches,  339. 

Book  Concern,  340. 

Church  Extension  Society,  341. 

Church  investigations,  341. 

Consolidation,  342. 

Corporators,  cannot  evict  trustees,  342, 

Division,  342. 

Division  of  1844,  343. 

Drew  Theological  Seminary,  344. 

Foreign  Missionary  Society,  bequest,  344. 

General  Conference,  power  to  divide  church,  344. 

Illinois,  Preachers'  Aid  Society,  345. 

John  Street  Church,  New  York,  345. 

Maine,  Preachers'  Aid  Society,  34(5. 

Methodist  Preachers'  Aid  Society,  Baltimore,  Maryland,  346. 

Ministers,  how  appointed,  347. 

Minister's  salary,  348. 

Missionary  Society,  349. 

Missionary  bequest,  349. 

Missions,  349. 

New  York,  9th  ward,  bequest  for  purcluuse  of  coal,  350. 

Ohio  Corporation,  350. 

Oregon  Mission,  351. 

Properly  to  be  held  in  trust,  355. 

Separation,  Church  South,  plan  final,  355. 

Separation,  Church  South,  ilolston  Confcr<>tice,  35f>. 

Separation,  title  to  local  property,  356. 

Separation,  1844,  home  rule  as  fo  future  relation.  357. 

Separation,  when  property  cannot  be  transferrfHl  to  Church  South,  357. 

Tennessee  Annual  ConfiTcncc,  357. 

Organization.      The    McllKMlist    Kpiscoicil    Cinii-cli    of   tlie 
United  Stales  \vas  established  in  its  jjonci-iiiiicmI.  (bicliiiM'. 

333 


:;:;i        Tin;  cinii.  law  am»  Tin:  riiri:(ii 

.•Hid  (lis(i|iliiM'  Itv  ;i  <  !ciici-;i  I  ( 'onrciciicc  of  the  I  ruvcliiif^ 
lircMclici's  ill  I  lie  ciMiiiiniiiioii  in  ITSI.  I)()\vii  1<»  lliat  liiiic  the 
Mclliodist  societies  in  Aiiiei-i<;i  li;i<l  been  j^oveiiied  hy  .loliii 
\\'esley,  the  fotiiider  of  tiiis  (leiioininalioii  of  rhristiaiis, 
through  the  agency  of  his  asHistaiits.  During  tliis  year  the 
entii-e  governnient  was  taken  into  the  hands  of  th<*  traveling 
preachers  with  his  ajiprohation  and  assent.  They  organ- 
ized it,  established  its  doctrines  and  <liscipline,  ajipointed 
the  several  authorities,  superintendents  or  hishojts,  min- 
isters and  preachers,  to  administer  its  polity  and  promul- 
gate its  doctrines  and  teaching  throughout  the  land.  From 
that  time  to  this  [1X51]  the  source  and  fountain  of  its  tem- 
poral power  was  the  traveling  preachers  in  this  connection 
in  General  Conference.  The  lay  members  of  the  church  have 
no  part  or  connection  with  its  govertimeiiTal  organization 
and  never  ha<l.  The  traveling  preachers  comprise  the  em- 
bodiment of  its  power,  ecclesiastical  and  temporal,  ami 
when  assend)led  in  General  Gonference  according  to  the 
usages  and  discipline  of  the  church,  represent  themselves, 
and  have  no  constituents,  and  this  organization  continued 
till  the  year  ISOS,  when  a  modification  took  ]dace.  At  a 
General  Conference  of  that  year,  composed  of  all  the  travel- 
ing preachers,  it  was  resolved  to  have  thereafter  a  delegatetl 
Conference,  to  be  comi)osed  of  one  for  every  five  members  of 
each  Annual  Conference.  The  ratio  of  representation  has 
been  altered  from  time  to  time  so  that  in  1844  the  Annual 
Conferences  were  re])resented  by  one  delegate  for  every 
twenty-one  members.  The  General  Conference  of  1808 
adopted  a  form  of  government  or  constitution,  in  wliich  it 
was  declared  that  the  General  Conference  shall  have  full 
power  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  church  under 
the  following  limitations  and  restrictions.  (Then  followed 
six  restrictive  rules,  comj)rising  all  the  limitations  upon 
that  body  assend)led  by  delegates.  For  a  further  consider- 
ation of  this  subject,  see  the  paragraph  on  Book  Concern 
and  power  to  divide  the  church.)  Bascom  v  Lane,  Fed. 
Cas.  1080  (Cir.  Ct.  Dist.  N.  Y.).     Equal  lay  representation 


METHODIST  Einscoi'AI.  CIirifrTI  :',:',r» 

in  the  General  Conference  has  Itecn  a(l»)i)t(M)  siiicc  this  (h'ci- 
sion  was  rendered. 

Anti-Slavery  Control.  A  (■((nvcyancc  <»!'  land  was  iiKidc  lo 
this  soeiety  in  18^3!),  containinji,-  the  n-cital  that  "said  prem- 
ises and  building  being  princi]»ally  pMrchascd  ;ind  procnrcd 
b}''  the  auti-slavery  members  of  said  rlmrcii.  ilu'  same  arc 
to  be  wholly  under  their  control  and  dii-ectioii,  and  in  im 
case  whatever  are  any  such  members  of  said  churcli  as  ;irc 
not  believers  in  and  praeticers  of  the  doctrines  of  anti  slav 
ery  to  take  any  i)art  or  liave  any  ])Ower  of  controlling  the 
use  of  said  premises  and  building,  or  in  any  way  dis|»osing 
of  the  same,  but  the  same  shall  be  and  remain  i'orever  under 
the  control  and  direction  of  such  members  of  said  church  as 
are  embraced  with  the  feelings  and  o])inions  of  the  anti 
slavery  society  for  the  immediate  abolition  of  slaveiy  in 
the  I'nited  States;  and,  further,  that  in  no  case  is  the  Clcn- 
eral  Conference  of  the  Methodist  10i)iscopal  Church  to  have 
any  right  in  said  premises  and  building,  or  take  any  control 
or  direction  of  the  same."  These  i»rovisions,  relating  to  the 
control  of  the  property,  were  held  to  constitute  a  condition, 
and  the  subsequent  action  of  the  local  society  in  placing 
itself  uinhM-  the  jiirisdiction  of  the  (leneral  Conferenic  of 
the  Methodist  Ejiiscopal  Church,  and  receiving  a  minister  in 
the  usual  metlio<l  of  ai)pointment,  was  a  breach  of  the  cundi- 
tion  which  entitled  the  grantor  to  reentei-.  (Inild  v  Rich- 
ards, 1  (I  Gray  (:Mass.)  iJOO. 

Baltimore  Conference.  By  a  will  hearing  date  in  ls.">|  the 
testator  devised  to  the  Methodist  l-litiscojial  Chnreli  in 
Berryville,  in  Baltimore  ('onfei-eiice,  a  house  and  lot.  In  l»e 
used  for  a  parsonage  or  for  dtlier  piuns  purposes.  In  isdl 
the  BaltinH)re  Confei-ence  .severed  its  connection  with  the 
Methodist  IC]iiscoi)al  Church,  and  united  with  the  Methodist 
Episcoi)al  Church,  South.  Cei-tain  menihers  of  tlie  local 
church  attached  themselves  to  the  Methodist  l]|»is<(»pal 
Churcli,  Soutli,  ami  elected  trustees,  thereup»»n  claiming  to 
be  the  successoi-s  of  the  trustees  (tf  the  original  M»'thodist 
Episcopal    Church   at    Uerryville,   anti    tliei-efore  etilillii!    lo 


:{:;(;        Tiiio  cixiL  law  and  Tin:  ciiLUcii 

the  projuM'ty  <levis<'<l.  They  broiij^Iit  an  action  against  tlic 
fiMislccs  of  the  orijiiiial  society  to  (h'terniine  th(!  tith;  to  the 
property.  In  the  division  of  the  Metho<list  Episcopal 
Chnrch,  which  occurred  in  1S44,  tlie  Baltimore  Conference 
adhei'ed  to  tiie  Methodist  l"l])iscopal  Chnn-h,  and  this  church 
al  HerryviHe  remained  wiili  lli.il  Conference  in  ihat  church 
and  did  not  nnite  in  tiie  movement  whicii  cnlminated  in  the 
general  convention  which  was  held  at  Lonisville.  Kentncky, 
in  1845,  which  declared  the  jnrisdiction  heretofore  exer- 
cised over  tlie  ('onfei-ence  there  assend)led  as  entirely  dis- 
solved, and  established  a  separate  ecclesiastical  connection, 
to  be  known  b}^  the  style  and  title  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
coi)al  Church,  South ;  but  the  Baltimore  Conference  decided 
in  1840  to  take  no  part  in  the  new  movement.  In  1ST(J  a 
joint  comuiission  was  appointed  b}'  the  Methodist  E[)iscopal 
Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to 
adjust  matters  of  controversy  between  the  two  churches. 
That  commission  met  at  Cape  May,  New  Jersey,  the  same 
year,  and  awarded  the  property  in  dis])ute  to  tlie  Methodi.st 
Episcopal  Church,  South.  In  1854  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  was  in  existence  as  such,  and  well  known  to 
the  testator.  It  was  held  in  this  case  that  the  i)roperty  was 
not  devised  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  but 
to  another  and  distinct  denomination  of  Christians.  The 
jiroperty  was  devised  to  the  trustees  of  the  local  congrega- 
tion and  was  not  devised  to  either  denomination  as  snvh, 
and  neither  clinrch  in  its  general  ca]>acity  had  any  power 
to  take  such  a  devise.  A  grant  to  either  (leneral  Conference 
would  have  been  void.  The  (jeneral  Conference  had  no  power 
over  this  ]>ro])erty.  The  award  by  the  commission  was, 
therefore,  a  nullity,  and  was  not  binding  on  the  local  society. 
It  was  further  held  that  the  trustees  of  the  local  society  who 
had  attached  themselves  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  had  no  claim  to  the  property.  Box  well  v  Aflleck. 
70  Va.  402. 

Land  was  conveyed  to  the  societj'  in  trust  that  the  trustees 
should  buihl,  or  cause  to  be  built,  thereon  a  house  or  place 


METHODIST   i:i'lS( 'ol'AL  ('111  K('ll  :i;;7 

of  worslii]>  for  llic  use  oi  the  meiiihers  of  the  Methodist  lOpis 
copal  Chiii-ch  ill  (lie  Tiiited  States  of  Aineriea,  aecordiiiji  to 
the  rules  and  discipline  which  from  time  to  time  may  be 
agreed  upon  and  adopted  by  the  ministers  and  ])reachers  of 
the  said  church,  at  their  (Jeneral  Confereuees  in  the  United 
States  of  America;  and  i»eruiit  sucli  ministers  and  ]>reaehers 
belon<i;in<j  to  said  chureli,  as  shall  lium  time  to  time  be  duly 
authorized  by  the  General  Confeit'iicc  (tl'  ilw  miiiislers  an<l 
preachers  of  the  said  Metliodist  Episcopal  Churcli,  (ir  liy  liie 
Annual  ('onference  authoi-ized  by  the  said  (Jeueral  ('(nirer- 
ence  to  ]jreach  and  expouud  (Jod's  Holy  Word  therein.  It 
was  held  that  the  deed  conveyed  the  ]>roperjy  lo  ilie  um's  of 
the  local  society,  and  substantially  all  the  use  that  could  be 
nuide  of  it  would  be  by  nuMubei's  of  thai  society.  'IMie  ju-i- 
mary  object  of  the  whole  transaction  niusi  neccssaiily  have 
been  to  ])rovide  and  secure  a  ])lace  of  \\(uslii|»  a«(<u'(liug 
to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  DiscipliiK'  foi'  (he  htcal  society 
of  that  denomination,  by  and  foi-  which  c(»iiliiltiitioiis  were 
made,  and  which  was  exi)e(  ted  to  at  lend  worsliip  on  the 
]»reuiises.  The  nuMubers  of  the  Methodist  lOpiscop.il  (liurcli 
at  large,  not  belonging  to  the  loc;il  sociely,  can.  in  a  genei-al 
view,  have  no  other  use  of  the  btcal  premises  hnl  lliiough 
the  instrumentality  of  I  he  local  society  and  lt.\  means  (tf 
the  subordination  of  the  local  use  to  the  laws  and  aulliorily 
of  the  church  at  large.  The  local  society  has  no  aoIcc  in  the 
selection  of  its  ministers.  A  local  society  lias  no  i-ight  to 
be  represented  by  delegates,  eilhei-  in  tin-  AiiMiial  Coiifer- 
ence  or  in  the  Genei-al  Conference.  Tluy  had  no  voice  in 
making  the  rules  tor  the  government  of  llie  clinicli.  and 
none  in  the  ai)iK)iutment  or  selection  of  the  jucachi'r  to  whose 
charge  they  might  be  commit  led.  The  Halliniore  Coiiler 
ence,  which  iucludecl  Salem,  decided  to  remain  in  conne**- 
tiou  with  the  Methodist  10pisco|ial  Churcii,  but  by  .1  pro 
vision  in  the  resolutions  of  the  (Jeueral  Coufei-eiice  ot  IMl 
local  churches  in  the  border  Conferences  might  tor  tlieni 
selves  determine  whether  to  continne  in  connection  wiili  ilie 
Methodist    V^piscopal    (Miiircli    or    join    the    .Methodist    llpis 


^38       tin:  <m\il  r.AW  .\.\h  riii:  ciii  imii 

copjil  Clmrcli,  Soulli.  Sjilnii  Cliiircli  \v;is  licM  l«»  lie  ;i 
border  socicly  uikIci"  llie  (IcncrMl  ('(mrciMMicc  ic.-^cdiilion. 
The  society  voted  on  the  question  (A'  its  ruturc  relation  to 
tlie  Oeneral  Church,  Nortli  or  Soutli,  and  iiie  majority  de- 
cided to  join  the  (,'hurch  South.  Tliis  was  hehl  to  i)lace  the 
local  society  under  the  jurisdiction  ol  the  (Minrc  h  South,  not 
only  as  to  its  internal  or<>;anization,  but  as  to  its  projierty  and 
all  other  i)rovisions  incident  to  its  relation  to  the  church 
organization.  Brooke  v  SliacUlcft  (CaT-lcr  v  Wolfe  i  1:5 
(Jratt.  (Va.)  :'»(M). 

Baltimore  Conference,  Separation  of  1844.  Tiiis  Conference 
was  one  of  the  border  (J'onferences  in  the  i)lan  ot  sejjaration, 
and  was  therefore  entitled  to  determine  whether  it  would 
remain  connected  with  the  Methodist  ICpiscoital  Church  or 
join  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  This  Confer- 
ence in  1845  elected  to  go  with  the  Church  North.  This 
determined  its  ecclesiastical  status.  A  movement  for  the 
change  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  from  the  Church  North 
to  the  Church  South  was  initiated  at  the  Annual  Conference 
held  at  Staunton,  Virginia,  in  ISGl,  and  consummated  at  the 
Annual  Conference  held  in  Alexandria  in  1SG(3.  This  action 
did  not  affect  the  status  of  the  Conference  which  had  elected 
to  go  with  the  Church  North.  Venable  v  Cotfman.  2  W. 
Va.  31. 

Bible  Society  Discontinued.  The  organization  known  as 
the  Bible  Society  of  the  Methodist  F]piscopal  Church,  which 
had  existed  for  many  years  previous  to  1836,  was  in  that 
year  dissolved  u]wn  the  recommendation  of  the  General 
Conference  of  that  church.  The  (Jeneral  Conference  at  the 
same  time  recommended  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Churches  to  unite  with  the  American  Bible  Society  in  carry- 
ing forward  its  object;  and  contributions  \\ere  thencefor- 
ward taken  up  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  churches  through- 
out from  year  to  year  in  aid  of  the  American  Bible  Society. 
Since  1840  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
have  been  niendiers  of  the  board  of  managers  of  the  Amer- 
ican Bible  Societv,  and  held  oflice  in  said  societv.     There  is 


METHODIST  El'lSCOl'AL  CHUKCH  3',ii) 

another  association  belonging  to  the  Methodist  (Muirch,  a 
part  of  whose  action  is  devoted  to  the  circnlation  and  dis- 
tribution of  Bibles  called  the  "Methodist  Book  Concern,!' 
and  there  are  other  societies  besides  the  American  Bible 
Society  that  have  the  same  general  object.  Bliss  v  American 
Bible  Society,  2  Allen  (Mass.)  334. 

Bishop's  Authority  to  Consolidate  Churches.  This  society 
was  created  by  the  consolidation  of  three  other  Methodist 
societies  in  Norwich,  known  as  the  East  Main  Street  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Chnrch,  the  Sadiem  Street  Methodist 
Episcojjal  Cliurch,  and  the  Central  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  The  consolidation  was  effected  by  an  order  made 
by  Bislioj)  Walden  at  a  session  of  tlic  New  lOngland  Sontliern 
Annual  Conference,  held  in  Providence  in  Ls!),").  This  action 
by  the  bishop  was  taken  under  the  authority  assumed  to 
be  vested  in  him  ''to  fix  the  ap]M>intni(Mits  of  the  ]»reachers" 
by  section  3  of  paragraph  170  of  the  Book  of  Discijtline  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  contained  in  the  Dis- 
cijdine  of  18t)2.  and  in  foi'ce  at  the  time  of  the  order.  In 
Trinity'  Methodist  Episcopal  Chnrch  v  Harris,  73  Conn. 
216,  it  is  said  "that  other  b*isho])s  of  the  church  have  put 
the  same  consti'uction  on  that  |iart  of  the  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, and  that  churches  have  been  in  the  past  on  many 
occasions  so  united;  and,  so  far  as  appears,  the  power  and 
authoi'ity  of  a  Idslioii  ])r('sidiHg  at  an  Annual  Confei'ence 
to  make  such  consolidation  has  never  been  called  in  ques- 
tion. We  understand  that  this  construction  of  the  Book  of 
Discijtline  is  in  accordan<-e  \\itii  the  nniform  and  uni\ersal 
practice  of  the  Methodist  lOpiscopal  Church.  It  agrees  with 
the  common  understanding  of  the  practice  of  tlial  chnrch." 
vjriie  action  of  Bisli<»]»  ^^  aldcn  was  binding  on  every  mendier 
of  the  churches  so  consolidated.  It  was  held  that,  accoi'ding 
to  the  rules,  usages,  an<l  disciidinc  of  tiie  Methodist  ICpis- 
co])al  Chnnh,  Trinity  Clinrch  was  the  successor  to  the 
grantees  named  in  a  (\rvA  of  land  to  the  Central  .Metliotlist 
10j)iscoj)al  CInii'cli.  V'Tlie  cousolidalion  (»f  ihe  tliice  clinrclies 
into  one  was  a   matter  of  ecclesiasi  ie.il    l;i\\    ainl    |n  act  ice; 


;M()  'rili;  ("l\  IL   LAW    ANh  Tin;  ("111   KCII 

;ili(l  llic  (Ircisinii  ul'  llic  (•cclcsiiisl  ic;i  I  tiilniii:il  on  lliiil  iiiiitlcr 
is  hiiwliiij;  on   llic  civil   conrls."  ' 

Book  Concern.  The  I?ool<  Concein  was  establislied  at  a 
very  early  <lay,  by  tlic  trav<'lin^^  idcacliors  in  coniuMlion 
Willi  that  cliui-ch.  and  llic  i)roti1s  to  he  derived  therefrom 
wei-e  de\(»teil  liy  llifiii  lo  tlic  relief  of  liieii-  distressed  snper- 
imnieiMry  ;ind  worn  out  l>i-et  lireii,  llieir  widows  and  orjtlians. 
The  fonndalion  of  this  charily  is  peculiar  and  novel.  The 
lr;i\eliii^f  pi-eaclieis  ai'c  liolli  the  founders  and  the  heiieli- 
claries.  They  are  the  i>roprielors  of  the  <haritahle  fund, 
and.  a<'coi-din}^  to  the  <-onsl  ilntion  iin<ler  which  the  endow- 
nienl  w.is  made.  als(»  enlitled  t(»  its  procee<ls.  Accordiiij;  to 
the  orijiinal  conslilnlion  of  this  fund  hy  the  fonnd<*rs,  who 
had  a  rijiht  to  pres<ril>e  the  terms  and  conditions  upon 
which  Hie  proceeds  or  jtrolits  should  be  distributed,  and  the 
])ersoiis  to  whom,  ami  which  when  prescribed  furnislies 
the  law  of  the  case  for  the  court,  these  jiroceeds  and  protits 
have  been  devoted  to  the  relief  of  distressed,  traveliug  super- 
uumerary  aud  worn-out  ju-eachers  in  the  connection  of  the 
Methodist  ICpiscoj)al  Church,  their  wi(b)ws  and  orphans. 
The  sixth  restrictive  rule  ]»rovides  that  tlie  General  Confer- 
ence "shall  not  ajtiu-opriate  the  jiroceeds  of  the  Book  Con- 
cern, nor  the  charter  fund,  to  any  i)nrpo.se  other  than  for  the 
benefit  of  the  travelinj?  supernumerary  and  worn  out  jireach- 
ers.  their  wives,  witlows.  and  children."  The  division  of  the 
chur(h  in  1S4I,  and  the  erection  of  the  Methodist  l>])isco]»al 
Church.  South,  in  lS4r).  did  not  deprive  the  latter  church 
and  its  ministers,  nor  their  widows  aud  children  of  their 
rij>lit  to  share  in  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the 
Book  Concern  as  jirovided  by  tlu'  sixth  restrictive  rule.  It 
is  this  descrijition  of  persons  to  ^^hom  it  is  destined  by  tlie 
adjiidication  of  the  court.  They  are  not  only  within  the 
description,  but  are  also  the  very  jtersons  heretofore  in  the 
enjoyment  of  it,  and  for  whom  it  was  orijjiually  intended, 
drantiuji;  that  these  jiersous  have  done  no  wrongful  act,  hut 
are  still  laborin«;  in  the  church  as  heretofore,  except  under 
a  dilTereul  merely  territorial  orijanizatiou.  they  are  covered 


METHODIST  KriSCOl'Al.  (Ill  K<ii  ;;n 

ItV  tlic  spiiil.  il'  not  Ity  tlic  letter  of  the  restiietive  artiele, 
hihI  it  w;is  lliei-efore  liehl  tli;il  the  i-oinphiinants  were  en- 
tilled  to  their  shnie  of  the  IJook  Coiicei-ii.  Bascom  v  Lane, 
Fed.  ('as.  No.  1(IS!>.     ((Mr.  Ct.  Dist.  of  N.  V.K 

Church  Extension  Society.  A  l)e(iuest  of  ^1(),00(>  was  made 
to  this  society,  incorporated  under  the  laws  of  rennsyl- 
vania,  "to  be  nsed  as  a  jtart  of  the  Perpetual  Loan  Fnnd  of 
said  society,  and  to  bear  the  name  of  the  Durham 
Loan  Fund.*"  In  (Mnircli  Ivxlension  of  the  ^[etliodist  Kpis- 
copal  Church  v  Smith,  ."it;  Md.  ;!(!li,  this  becpiest  was  held 
void,  the  court  observin";  that  while  the  legatee  was  duly 
incorporated  and  cajiable  under  its  charter  of  taking  the 
bequest  for  the  general  i)urposes  of  the  association,  the 
testatrix  had  chosen  to  declare  the  particular  use  and  pur- 
pose to  which  the  fun<]  should  be  ai)plie<|.  I*,y  a  rule  of  the 
society  any  person  making  a  donation  of  ^5,000  or  more  to 
a  loan  fund,  might  designate  the  name  by  which  said  contri- 
bution shall  be  known.  The  loan  fund  was  set  apart  to  be 
loaned  to  necessitous  churches  of  the  Methodist  Kpiscoi)al 
Church,  erected  from  time  to  time,  within  the  limits  of  the 
Fnited  States  and  its  territories,  the  authorities  of  the 
society  selecting  the  beneficiaries.  It  was  held  that  the 
legacy  was  not  given  to  the  corporation  for  its  own  use,  and 
could  not  be  used  for  its  general  ]tnri>oses.  The  elTect  of 
the  will  was  to  constitute  the  society  a  trustee  charged  with 
the  duty  of  emjdoying  the  fund  only  for  the  use  and  benefit 
of  necessitous  McMliodist  elnirches  in  the  United  States. 
Such  churches  wei-e  the  real  beiieticiai-ies  for  whirh  the  leg- 
acy was  given,  and  the  conit  hehl  that  such  a  trust  was  so 
indefinite  that  it  could  not  he  enforced.  The  corporation 
by  failing  to  ai)])oint  an  ai»propriate  committee,  or  by  fail- 
ing to  designate  churches  as  beneficiaries  of  the  fund,  could 
practically  divert  the  fund  to  uses  not  contemplated  i)y 
the  donor,  and  no  one  would  have  the  power  to  invoke  the 
aid  of  a  court  of  equity  for  the  euforcemeut  of  the  trust. 

Church  Investigations.  In  Tul»l)s  v  Lynch,  I  Harr.  (I>el.) 
521,  it  was  held  that  a  church  investigation  by  a  committee 


;:i2        'iMii:  civ  il  law   A.\h  'I'lii:  ciirinii 

;i|>|)()inl('(l  liv  tlic  piistor  lo  cuiisidcr  various  coinplai  nis  liy 
liuMiibcrs  of  llic  cliiircli  had  im»  l»';,'al  rllct  I  in  a  <(tiirl  n\'  law. 
jumI  tliat  llic  (•oiiimilh'c's  rc|»<»rl  was  not  l)iinlin;i  and  final 
even  in  IIk'  clinrcli.  I»ii(  was  sniijcci  to  review  and  revision  hy 
appropriale  clnircli  trilinnals.  Tlu-  action  of  tlie  clinri  li  is 
desi^^ned  to  have  a  inoiai  and  not  a  le<;al  residl  ;  the  ])en- 
alty  of  not  aindin};  by  it  is  no  other  than  cliiirrli  dis(i|»line; 
and  to  jiive  it  a  h'^al  (  onsecinenee  or  efficacy  woiihl  l»e  to 
coniitid  nienduM-s  of  that  society  to  suhtnit  Iheii-  i-iuhts  to  tin* 
decision  o\'  a  <lnirch  coiuniittee,  withdrawing  thein  from  tlie 
legal  tribunals  of  the  country.  "Members  of  tliis  cbnrch 
cannot  go  to  law  with  each  other  until  the  matter  has  first 
been  stii-red  in  the  church." 

Consolidation.  This  society  was  by  an  order  made  by 
Bisho]>  Walden  in  IS!);")  declared  to  be  the  successor  to  three 
Methodist  I^iiiscojjal  churches  in  Norwich,  which  were  vow- 
solidated  by  him  to  form  the  new  society.  This  action  by 
the  bishop  was  hehl  binding  on  the  (Mvil  Courts  of  Connecti- 
cut. Trustees  of  Trinity  M.  E.  Church  v  Harris,  7:5  C(nin. 
LMC. 

Corporators,  Cannot  Evict  Trustees.  A  portion  of  the  cor- 
l)orators  alleged  to  constitute  a  majority  took  possession  of 
the  property  and  assumed  to  contiol  it  and  i>rescribe  and 
regulate  the  religious  services  to  be  held  in  the  cliurch. 
Such  action  by  tlie  corporators  amounted  to  an  eviction 
of  the  trustees  who  did  not  consent  to  such  occupancy,  and 
the  trustees  were  held  entitled  to  maintain  an  action  in 
the  name  of  the  corporation  to  recover  ])ossession  of  the 
l)roperty.  First  M.  E.  Church  in  Attica  v  Filkins,  3  T.  &  C. 
(N.  Y.)  'J7!>. 

Division.  In  Hi-ooke  v  Shacklett,  Ki  (Jratt.  ( Va. )  :}00, 
the  court,  referring  to  the  division  resulting  from  the  action 
of  the  (leneral  (\)nference  of  1S4+.  said:  "If  this  division  of 
the  church  was  lawful,  it  is  obvious  that  the  members  of 
the  local  societies  in  the  Southern  Organization  of  the 
church  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  the  (lenei-al  Conference, 
the  Annual  Conference,  the  bishojis,  i)a.stors,  rules  and  dis- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  343 

cipliue  of  the  Methodist  Episco])iiI  Church,  South,  that  they 
occupied  belore  the  division,  in  respect  to  those  of  tlie  Meth- 
adist  Episcopal  Church.  There  lias  been  no  chan<;i'  of  faitii, 
no  change  of  doctrine,  no  change  of  discijiline,  no  change  in 
the  mode  of  administering  it;  all  remain  as  before.  The 
General  Conference  of  1S44  had  power  to  |)rovide  for  the 
division.  '*Tlie  ministers  and  preachers,  in  whom  resided 
the  supreme  i)ower,  liad,  when  they  ass»Mnbh'd  in  17S4  to 
frame  a  government  for  the  cliurch,  full  power  to  place  it 
under  one  or  two,  or  a  still  greater  number  of  general  organ- 
izations, if  they  had  believed  that  the  interests  of  the  church 
would  be  thereby-  promoted.  And  I  do  not  see  how  it  can 
be  said  that  the  General  Conferences  of  ITIH'.  1  ?!)(;,  1800, 
1804,  and  1808,  comj>(>sed,  as  they  were,  of  the  body  of  the 
ministers  and  preachers,  did  not  each  have  the  same  power. 
And  when  they  deterniine<l  at  the  last  mentioned  Conference 
(1808)  to  meet  no  longei-  en  nuisse,  but  thereafter  by  a  dele- 
gation from  their  own  body,  the  provision,  which  they 
adopted,  that  the  General  Conference  should  have  full 
powers  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  church,  under 
the  limitations  and  restrictions  contained  in  the  six  re- 
strictive articles  just  mentioned,  amounted  in  substance  to 
an  authority  to  the  delegates  in  Confei-ence  thereafter  to 
exercise  all  the  powers  (except  those  ju-ohibited  in  said 
restrictive  articles)  that  ccmld  at  any  time  have  been  e.ver- 
cised  by  a  full  Confei-ence  of  all  the  ministers  and  jjreachers. 
No  further  limitation  of  the  powers  of  the  (Jeneral  ('onfer- 
em-e  having  been  subsequently  made,  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  Confei-ence  of  1844  was  clollied  wilh  the  powei-  \\Iiich 
it  claimed  and  exercised. 

Division  of  1844.  The  separation  of  the  Meiliodisi  10])is- 
copal  Church  into  two  MiMhodist  P.piscopal  Churches,  the 
one  North,  and  the  other  South,  of  a  common  bonndary  line, 
has  been  the  subject  of  mncii  disc  ussion,  in  which  the  wliole 
community,  moi-e  or  less,  felt  an  interest,  and  was  an  event 
that  connected  itself  with,  and  formed  a  part  of.  the  history 
of  the  country,   of   wiii<li    no   well  intoniietl    man    could    be 


:;ii         Tin;  ("i\  iL  LAW  AM)  TMi:  (III  i:(  II 

ij;ii()i;inl,  and  li-oiii  its  noloi-it'l y  coiiils  will  tak«i  judicial 
notice  of  it  witlionl  prool".  Accoi-diii<;  \<i  llic  jdaii  of  divi- 
sion, llic  local  societies  in  Kenlncky  passed  to  tin  Methodist 
ICpiscopal  Clmi-cli,  Sonlli,  exce|tl  those  horderini;  on  the 
Ohio  l\ivei",  which  wei*e  permit  te(l  to  deteiinine  the  (jnestion, 
\\liether  they  wonhl  'j^o  X(»rtli  or  Soiilli.  hy  a  \()te  of  the 
i*es)(ective  societies.  Ilnni|iliicy  \  Uuiiiside,  I  r.iish  (.Ky.) 
215. 

Drew  Theological  Seminary.  Testator  made  pfrpeinal  prci- 
vision  in  his  will  for  the  edncation  of  two  yoim^'  men  in  thi.s 
institntion  for  the  nunistry,  one  to  go  in  foreign  missions 
aud  the  other  to  become  a  member  of  the  Wilmington  Con- 
ference. Testator's  son  and  son-in-law  were  given  i»ower  to 
appoint  young  men  to  receive  the  instruction,  and  after  the 
death  of  each  of  such  relatives  the  power  of  appointment 
was  to  be  vested  in  the  Wilnnngton  Annual  Conference. 
The  bequest  was  sustained.  It  was  not  void  for  uncertainty 
because  the  amount  was  not  fixed.  The  amount  needed  for 
this  pur])ose  could  be  ascertained  from  year  to  year,  and 
the  trustees  would  always  be  at  liberty  to  apjily  to  a  court 
of  equity  for  instructions.  Field  v  Drew  Theological  Semi- 
nary. 41   Vvi].  :m1.     (Cir.  Ct.  Del.) 

Foreign  Missionary  Society,  Bequest.  A  bequest  to  the 
Foreign  Missionary  Society  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  was  held  to  be  intended  for  the  Missionary  Society 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  there  being  no  society 
bearing  the  first  name,  and  the  latter  having  charge  of  the 
foreign  missionary  ^^"ork  of  the  clini-ch.  Ke  Bryson's  Estate, 
7  Pa.  Sui>er.  Ct.  (iL'4. 

General  Conference,  Power  to  Divide  Church.  The  (Jeneral 
Conference,  coni])osed  of  all  the  traveling  jireachers,  and 
who  established  the  government,  doctrines,  and  discijiline 
of  the  church,  possessed  the  power  to  reconstruct  and  reor- 
ganize the  government,  ecclesiastical  and  tenii)oral,  into 
two  or  more  separate  and  distinct  organizations.  These 
traveling  preachers  represented  the  sovereign  power  of  the 
government,  aud  were  responsible  to  no  earthly  tribunal  for 


mi:tii()I)Ist  i:i'isc()|'ai.  cmucii  ;;ir. 

llie  iiuxlc  and  iiiaiincr  of  its  exercise.  The  traveling;  iiicadi- 
ers  assoiiil)le(l  in  (iiMieral  Conrerence  emlMMly.  ami  in  ilieni- 
selves,  the  sovereign  jyower,  and  we  liaxc  n<»\\liei-t'  seen  llieii' 
consent  to  any  liniilation  or  rest liel ion  till  all  come  down, 
in  the  history  of  their  administration,  to  the  Conlereiice  of 
1808.  We  must  have  some  evidence  that  thej'  have  jKirted 
with  a  j)ortion  of  tlieir  soverei<>n  ]>ower  tliat  confessedly 
Ijelonged  to  them  at  the  first  oi'j»anization  since  that  jteriod  ; 
and  that  Ihey  assembliMl  in  tlie  sid)seqnent  Confei^MUM',  snh- 
ject  to  the  disahility,  before  tlieir  power  can  he  dislini;nislied 
I'rom  those  ori_i;inally  ])0ssessed.  As  it  respects  tlic  jiowers 
of  the  (Jeneral  Coniei-ence  since  the  modilicalions  of  ISOS, 
it  is  the  same  as  previously  existed,  subject  to  the  six  re- 
strictive articles,  and  neither  of  them  has  any  connection 
with  or  beariuij;  u|»on  the  question  we  havi>  been  consider- 
ing. 

The  connection  of  the  Annual  Upi)er  Canada  C<niference 
with  the  Metliodist  Episcopal  riiurch  was  dissolved  in  182S, 
and  that  body  authorized  to  erect  itself  into  an  indejKMident 
ecclesiastical  establishment.  As  it  resj)ecls  the  i»ow»'r  ol' 
the  General  Conference  of  1844  in  the  matter  of  division,  no 
one  can  i)retend  Inil  that  it  ]»i-ocee<led  upon  the  assum]ilion 
of  unquestioned  power  to  ei-ecl  the  clinrch  into  two  separate 
ecclesiastical  establishments.  As  a  result  of  tlie  action  of 
the  (leneral  Confereiice  of  1844  authoi-izing  the  se|»aratiou 
of  the  Southern  (\)nferences,  two  distinct  eccU'siastical 
organizations,  identically  the  same,  have  taken  the  place  of 
one,  the  same  Discipline,  faith  an<l  doctrine,  and  all  united 
in  spreading  the  same  gos])el  and  teachings  througliout  the 
laml.     IJascom  v  Lane.  Vri\.  (\is.  lOSl),  (Cir.  Ct.  Dist.  X.  V.i. 

Illinois,  Preachers'  Aid  Society.  Treachers'  Aid  Socit'ty  v 
England,  10(1  111.  12."),  sustained  a  grant  of  land  to  a  ti'uslee 
in  trust  for  this  society  to  be  used  foi-  the  bcnetil  of  snpei*- 
annuatetl  ministers  and  their  families. 

John  Street  Church,  New  York.  Sec  >\yati  v  Hcnson,  L':J 
Barb.  (N.  V.)  '.\'2~,  foi*  a  history  of  nioxcmenis  in  Is."*.')  an<l 
1850  for  the  sale  of  the  -lolin   Street    Clnirih   jiroperty,   in- 


;:i(;        Till':  cixii.  \..\\y  am»  'nil']  cwincw 

chuliiiji  scNcijil  s\iils  :iii<l  llic  siihinissioii  ol'  \;irioiis  coiilfo- 
vcrsics  rclaliii^  (<>  llu*  snl>J(Ml  to  liislutp  Miilllicw  Simpson 
as  arbitrator.  The  court  liolcis,  aiiMtii;;  otlici-  tliiiij^s,  that 
triistees  of  a  rciij^ious  corporation  cainntt,  on  their  own 
motion,  and  without  a  vole  <tf  the  corjxu-ation,  institute  a 
proccediu*;;  lor  the  sale  of  the  church  pi()|teily;  that  tiie  sub- 
mission to  Bislio])  Sim]>son  of  any  (luestion  relating  to  the 
sale  of  the  jtroperty  was  invalid,  for  the  reason,  as  stated 
by  Judge  Davies,  that  'Mt  was  not  competent  to  submit  the 
(piestiou  as  to  whetlier  or  not  the  church  shoubl  be  sold,  to 
any  tribunal  other  than  that  pointed  out  by  law";  that  the 
court  could  not  without  the  consent  of  the  corjioration 
direct  a  sale  of  its  projjertA',  and  no  arbitrator  could  be 
given  i)ower  to  say  that  church  ])roperty  should  or  should 
not  be  sold.  The  court  also  said  that  the  question  whether 
certain  j)ersons  Avere  the  legal  trustees  of  a  religious  cor- 
])oration  could  not  lawfully  be  submitted  to  an  arbitrator, 
for  the  reason  that  the  law  i)ointed  out  the  only  method  by 
which  the  title  to  an  ottice  could  be  determined. 

Wyatt  V  Benson,  24  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  327,  considers  various 
questions  relating  to  a  movement  in  1850  growing  out  of 
the  organization  of  the  first  church,  for  the  sale  of  the  John 
Street  Church  property,  and  the  removal  of  the  society  to 
an  nptown  location.  It  was  held,  among  other  things,  that 
the  trustees  could  not  on  their  own  motion  institute  a  pro- 
ceeding to  procure  an  order  for  the  sale  of  the  church  i)rop- 
erty,  and  that  such  a  sale  could  not  be  directed  by  the  court 
excei)t  with  the  consent  of  the  corporation. 

Maine,  Preachers'  Aid  Society.  Preachers'  Aid  Society  v 
Rich,  45  Me.  552.  sustained  a  bequest  to  this  society,  al- 
though at  the  time  of  making  the  will  the  society  was  not 
incorporated,  but  was  incorporated  after  the  testator's 
death.  It  was  held  com])etent  to  show  that  the  society  was 
the  beneficiary  intended  by  the  testator,  and  the  railroad 
bonds  constituting  the  legacy  were  directed  to  be  delivered 
to  the  society. 

Methodist  Preachers'  Aid  Society,  Baltimore.  Maryland.     A 


MKTIIODIST  El'lSCUJ'AL  CHLKCH  ;i47 

devise  of  land  in  I'ennsylvania  to  this  society  was  sustained 
in  Tlionii»son  v  Swoojie,  24  I 'a.  474. 

Ministers,  How  Appointed.  According  to  the  constitution 
and  l)iscii)line  ol'  tlie  Metliodist  IOj)isc()j)al  Church  of  the 
United  States,  its  preachers,  denominated  deacons  and 
elders,  are  not  called  by  the  societies  to  which  they  preach, 
but  are  ai)pointe(l  to  stations,  and  to  travel  in  circuits  by 
the  presiding'  bisliop  of  the  Annual  Conference.  Tlie  jiower 
is  lodged  in  him,  but  from  a  practical  necessity  lie  ads  w  iih 
the  advice  of  liis  council  of  presiding  elders,  assend)led  a  I 
the  Annual  Conference.  The  Annual  Conference  was  com- 
posed of  the  deacons  and  elders  and  the  traveling  ministry 
within  the  respective  Conferences,  i)resided  over  by  a  bisho]>, 
or  superintendent,  as  oi-iginally  termed,  assigned  to  liold  the 
Conference  by  the  board  of  bishops.  The  General  Confer- 
ence consists  of  delegates  elected  by  the  Annual  Conferences 
from  among  the  traveling  preachers,  i)resided  over  by  the 
bishops  in  turn,  and  holding  its  sessions  quadrennially. 
The  Annual  Conferences  are  divide<l  into  districts,  com- 
posed of  the  circuits  and  stations  within  their  res]>ective 
boundaries.  Over  each  district  the  bishop,  at  the  Animal 
Conference,  a]>p()ints  an  elder  to  preside,  who  travels  his 
district  four  times  a  year,  and  ]>resides  at  tlie  Quarterly 
Conference  in  each  circuit  or  station,  comjiosed  of  the 
traveling  and  local  preachers,  exhorters,  stewards  and  class 
leaders,  trustees,  an<l  tirst  male  snpei-intendent  of  Sunday 
schools.  A  station  is  a  single  place  of  stated  service,  wliile 
a  circuit  has  several.  It  is  to  these  circuits  and  statictns  the 
traveling  jtreachers  are  assigned  at  every  Annual  Confer- 
ence. In  his  ciicnit  or  stati(»n  the  prearliei-  in  tiiaige  ar- 
ranges or  ])lans  the  a|»i)ointments  of  serviee  dining  the  term 
of  his  own  api>ointnient.  As  t(>  the  ])articular  building  or 
bouse  in  which  services  shall  be  statedly  held,  tiiere  is 
nothing  definite  in  the  IMscipline,  an<l  the  aniliorily  t)ver  it 
seems  to  be  oidy  inferential,  arising  out  of  the  power  of  the 
preaclief  in  charge  to  arrange  the  a  |>|M»int  nieiits  ol  serxiee. 
which  must   in<ln<le  places  as  well  as  times  of  a  pjioinl  men  I . 


'MS  Till':  CINIL   LAW    AM)  Till;  ("IUKCII 

riiiii-fli  iK)lil.V  reserves  ;i  iMri^e  slmic  of  control  over  cliiiicli 
properly,  as  will  be  seen  in  Hie  <li;i|>tei-  in  tlie  Disciidine  on 
this  subject.  The  (2"''i'**''''y  ^'onfei-ences  must  secure  the 
ground  on  which  chui-ches  ni-e  to  be  built  nccoi-din;;  to  the 
deed  ol'  seltlemenl.  ;nid  ("in  iidiiiil  no  chni'ter  i,v  deed  tli:it 
does  not  secure  tlie  rij^hls  of  the  i)re;ichers  of  tJM'  chni-ch 
in  Hie  ministration  of  ils  .services  accfu-diuLC  to  the  true 
nieanin;^'  of  the  deed  of  seltlcnieiil,  the  form  of  which  is  pre- 
scribed.    Henderson  v  Hunter,  ">*>  Tii.  St.  ,">.'>."). 

Minister's  Salary.  Tlu;  laws  and  regulations  of  tlie  chuicii, 
enacted  by  ils  General  Conference,  and  contained  in  its 
"Hooks  of  Discipline,"  are  bindinj;  ujxni  its  churches  ami 
its  ministers.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  bishop  to  fix  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  preachers,  of  the  church  to  accept  the  jtrejicher 
thus  assigned  to  it,  and  of  the  ]>reaclier  to  serve  as  minister 
and  pastor  according  to  his  appointment.  It  is  also  pro- 
vided that  the  amount  necessary  to  furnish  a  comfortable 
suj)port  to  the  ]>reacher  should  be  estimated  by  a  committee 
appointed  b}'  the  Quarterly  Conference  within  whose  juris- 
diction he  was  stationed,  without  regard  to  the  pecuniary 
ability  of  the  society,  or  the  probability  whether  a  greater 
sum  could  be  raised  for  the  object,  and  that  certain  persons 
called  stewards  should  proceed  by  such  method  as  they 
judged  best  to  raise  the  estimated  amount.  None  of  these 
functionaries  are  officers  of  the  society,  nor  are  they  selected 
or  appointed  by  it.  It  is  also  in  the  same  way  provided 
"that  in  no  case  should  the  church  or  Conference  be  holden 
accountable  for  any  deficiency  as  in  case  of  debt." 

It  is  apparent  that  the  minister  who  renders  service,  does 
so,  not  upon  an  ag^-eed  salary,  but  u])on  an  allowance  for  the 
sui)i)ort  of  himself  and  family,  to  be  raised  by  voluntary 
and  not  enforced  contributions,  and  those  coming  not  wholly 
and  perhaps  not  at  all  from  the  society  or  church  to  which 
he  is  appointed.  Neither  the  Discipline  of  the  church  nor 
its  principles  recognize  any  contract  relation  between  the 
minister  and  the  society.  Its  entire  policy  is  opposed  to  it. 
It  regards  its  ministers,  not  as  hirelings,  but  as  ])ilgrims 


METHODIST   i:i'lS("(H'AL  (III   KCll  ;!1!» 

and  sojoiniiers,  and  its  societies  as  Noluiitai-y  cuiitiib- 
utoi's  to  a  general  fund.  From  the  fact,  therefore,  that 
service  is  rendered  and  service  received,  no  iini)lication 
can  arise  of  any  promise  of  comi)ensation.  Both  parties 
must,  in  the  absence  at  least  of  some  valid  express  agree- 
ment, be  deemed  to  have  acted  under  tlie  obli^Mtion  of  duty 
ijuposed  by  the  rules  to  wliicli  they  had  assented.  Land- 
ers v  Fraidv  St.  Church,  Kocliester,  I»7  X.  \.  11!>,  also 
114  N.  Y.  c.i't;. 

Missionary  Society.  A  devise  t<>  this  society  was  held  void 
on  the  j;i-ound  that  at  the  death  of  the  testator  the  society 
had  not  been  incoTj»orated.  The  devise  took  elfect  imme- 
diately, and  it  was  not  aided  by  the  subseipient  incorpora- 
tion of  the  society.  It  was  also  held  that  the  society  was 
not  a  forei<;n  missionary  society,  its  object  being,  as  stated 
in  its  charter,  "to  ditVuse  more  generally  the  blessings  of 
education,  civilization  and  Christianity  throughout  the 
United  States  and  elsewhere."  Chittenden  v  Chittenden, 
1  Am.  L.  Keg.  (N.  Y.)  5:i8. 

A  devise  of  land  in  rennsylvauia  to  this  .society  was  su.s- 
tained  in  Thonii)son  v  Swoojje,  24  Pa.  St.  471. 

This  society  was  held  not  a  religious  corporation  within 
the  New  York  Transfer  Tax  Law  as  ameuiled  in  1!M)().  and 
therefore  not  e.\em]>t  from  the  ]>aynient  of  a  tianslVr  lax  on 
a  legacy.     Ke  Watson  171  X.  Y.  1*5(;. 

Missionary  Bequest.  A  becpiest  to  the  "Methodist  lOpis- 
coi)al  Missionai'y  Society  of  Maine"  was  directed  to  be  paid 
to  the  "Trustees  of  the  I^ast  Maine  Conference,"  it  apjiear- 
ing  that  there  was  no  incoi-poiatcd  missionary  society  an- 
swering the  descri|»lion  of  the  will,  and  that  the  ICast  Maine 
Soc-iety  was  incori)orated  and  was  within  the  territory  in 
which  the  testatrix  resided.  Straw  v  I'ast  jNIaiue  Conf. 
M.  K.  Ch.  (17  Me.  19:5. 

Missions.  Testator  gave  tlic  i-csiduc  oi'  his  estate  to  the 
Methodist  10]>isco])al  Mission  at  r>ond»ay,  India.  Tlicie 
was  no  such  mission,  but  (here  was  a  general  missionary 
society  of  the  church  carrying  on  ojierations  in   India,  with 


;!."■)(>        Tin:  ri\  ii.  law  a.\i»  'riii;  cm  kcii 

its  lic;Hl(|ii-irl('rs  ;il  I  Jickiiow.  It  ;i|»|»c:ii-<'(l  lli:it  t  lie  Icstjitor 
Wiis  r.-iiiiiliiir  witii  llic  ;^ciicr;il  iiiissioiuiiT  oiicnif  ions  in 
Indi:)  and  liixl  iniidc  lil>(*r:il  coiit rihiitioiis  in  aid  (if  the 
(Mi(('fi»i-iso.  He  was  deemed  to  have  intende*!  to  devise  his 
estate  to  the  (Jenei-al  Society,  the  proceeds  to  he  nsed  in 
carrying;  on  its  work  in  India,  and  the  devise  was  therefore 
sustained.     McAllister  v  McAllister.  4(1  Vt.  272. 

A  becjuest  of  the  proceeds  of  a  sale  of  real  estate  to  the 
(Jeneral  Missionary  Society  was  sustained  in  Missionary 
Soeiety  Methodist  lOpiscojial  Chnich  v  Calvert,  '.')'2  (Iratt. 
(Va.)  .'{57.  The  provision  in  the  bequest  that  the  fund 
should  be  a|)propriated  to  the  India  mission  did  not  make 
it  void  for  uncertainty. 

Testator  gave  one  half  of  his  residuary  estate  to  the 
"Missionary  Case  of  the  M.  K.  Church."  The  word  "case" 
was  construed  to  mean  "Cause.''  The  Missionary  Society 
of  the  Methodist  Episcoi)al  Chuich  sonjiiit  to  obtain  the 
fund  on  the  p,round  that  it  was  the  general  agency  through 
which  missionary  oj>erations  in  the  denomination  were  car- 
ried on.  The  court  held  that  the  society,  not  having  been 
named  in  the  will,  was  not  entitled  to  the  fund,  but  the 
bequest  did  not,  for  that  reason,  fail,  and  the  court  sug- 
gested that  further  proceedings  would  be  necessary  on  the 
equity  side  to  determine  the  disposition  and  management  of 
the  fund,  for  the  purjiose  of  perpetuating  the  testator's 
intention.  Missionaiy  Society  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
V  Chapman,  12S  ]\Iass.  2(1,"). 

New  York,  9th  Ward,  Bequest  for  Purchase  of  Coal.  A 
bequest  of  the  residue  of  an  estate  to  the  Metliodist  Epis- 
co])al  churches  in  the  ninth  ward  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
according  to  the  number  of  members,  to  buy  coal  for  the 
l)oor  of  said  chniches  was  sustained.  The  testator  coutem- 
])lated  no  trust,  but  simjdy  made  a  betjuest  to  the  churches, 
and  the  same  was  valid.     Bird  v  Merklee,  144  N.  Y.  544. 

Ohio  Corporation.  This  church  was  incorporated  under 
the  laws  of  Ohio  with  Iwtdve  trustees — six  ministers  ami 
six  laymen — one  half  to  be  chosen  bv  the  General  Confer- 


METHODfST   KI'ISCOI'AL  CHURCH  :i51 

ence  quadi'eiiniMlly.  Tlie  corpoiatioii  was  <;ivt'n  jiowcr  to 
take  and  hold,  manage  and  convey  property  and  administer 
trusts  for  the  benefit  of  the  denomination,  and  the  c()rj)ora- 
tion  was  declared  to  be  subject  to  the  supervision  of  the 
General  Conference.  The  testator  bequeathed  a  portion  of 
his  estate  to  the  ''Methodist  Episcojtal  Church  to  bt*  used 
1)V  said  deuoniiualion  for  the  spread  and  furtherance  of  tlie 
gospel."  It  was  held  that  the  Ohio  corporation  was  entitled 
to  receive  this  bequest  and  that  it  could  not  l)e  i)aid  to  a 
local  society  of  the  deuoniiiuition.  Ke  Jiouser's  Estate, 
8  l*a.  Sup.  Ct.  188. 

Oregon  Mission.  The  Oregon  act  of  1818  confirmed  the 
title  to  lands,  not  exceeding  040  acres,  then  occui»ied  as 
missiouary  stations  among  the  Indian  tribes  of  said  terri- 
tory, together  with  the  im])rovements  thereon,  in  the  several 
religious  societies  to  which  said  missionary  stations  resjtec- 
tively  belonged.  From  1838  to  September,  1847,  the  mis- 
sionary society  of  the  ^lethodist  E])isco]>al  Church  main- 
tained a  mission  among  the  Wascopum  Indians  on  the  south 
bank  of  the  Columbia  River,  at  the  lower  end  of  the  Grand 
Dalles  thereof,  at  a  place  since  called  ''The  Dalles,"  in 
what  is  now  Wasco  County,  and  on  Jidy  I),  187,"),  received  a 
patent  from  the  United  States,  under  section  24-17  of  the 
Revised  Statutes,  for  a  tract  of  land  containing  (>4.'»..*)7  acres, 
including  the  ground  occupied  by  the  improvements  made 
at  such  mission. 

For  some  years  ])rior  to  the  ])assage  of  the  Oregon  act  of 
August  14,  184S,  there  were  three  religions  societies  en- 
gaged in  missionary  labors  among  the  Indians  in  Oregon — 
the  Methodist  l']»iscoj)al,  rresbytcrian,  ami  the  Roman 
Catholic.  The  first  missionaries  of  the  former  <'anie  to  Ore- 
gon with  Weytii  in  1S:'>I.  and  established  a  mission  at  W'al- 
lamet  below  Salem,  whicli  was  afterward  removed  to  the 
latter  ])lace.  Snbse(piently  their  nnndxM's  w<'re  increased, 
and  they  established  missions  at  I'he  hnlles.  Xes(|nall_v.  ami 
Clatsop. 

In    tile    Spring   of    18:58   the    Rev.    Daniel    Lee    and    Kev. 


;;r.L'        Tin:  cinii,  law  .\.\h  Tin:  ciii  K'cm 

11.  l\.  W.  rciUiiis.  iiikIci-  tlic  (liicci  ion  (d  llic  lic\.  .lasoii 
!.(■(',  Ilic  sii|»('i'iiil<'ii(]('iil  (if  I  lie  (Icrt'iMhiiil  ill  Ofcj^oii,  estab- 
lislicd  a  mission  williiii  llic  liiiiils  ol  the  (ra<-|  (Icsci-ibL'd  in 
the  palcnt  lu'i-e  at  a  j»la<('  flicn  called  Wascopiini.  In  the 
fall  of  the  same  year  il  was  stocked  with  cattle  fi'om  the 
AVillaniette  Valley.  The  place  was  favorably  situated  for 
trade  and  intercourse  with  the  Indians  and  ininii«jrants 
rr(»iii  the  east — llie  latter  iisnally  at  this  point  cxdianjied 
their  wagons  lor  ]»oats  ami  ol'teii  haiterini;'  llieif  poor  oxen 
for  supjdies,  such  as  fi-esh  beef  and  llie  like. 

In  1840  M.  11.  B.  Brewer  went  to  reside  there  as  a  farmer 
for  the  mission.  IVi'kins  and  Lee  left  the  mission  for  the 
East  in  1S44,  an<l  the  Rev.  A.  F.  Waller  joined  it  about  the 
same  time.  Waller  and  Brewer  remained  there  until  the 
transfer  of  the  station  to  Whitman  in  1847.  In  184-1  the 
Rev.  George  Oary  superseded  Jason  I^ee  as  superintendent 
of  the  Oregon  Mission.  Ap])arently  the  missionary  society 
had  become  dissatisfied  with  the  secular  character  and  cost 
of  the  missionary  o])erations,  and  sent  Gary  here  to  bring 
about  a  change  in  this  respect.  To  this  end,  soon  after  his 
arrival  in  the  territory,  the  various  mission  stations,  excejjt 
The  Dalles,  and  all  the  mission  property,  consisting  mainly 
of  large  herds  of  horses  and  cattle,  were  disposed  of  to  mem- 
bers of  the  mission,  so  that  after  1844  the  defendant  had  no 
mission  among  the  Indian  tribes  in  Oregon,  except  at  The 
Dalles.  Thereafter  the  labors  of  its  faithful  clerical  mis- 
sionaries, of  whom  but  a  few  remained  in  the  country,  were 
devoted  to  the  growing  white  settlement  in  the  Willamette 
\'alley.  In  the  language  of  one  of  them,  "The  finances  of 
the  Oregon  Mission  were  thus  summarily  brought  to  a  clo.se, 
and  the  mission  was  not  only  relieved  of  a  pt)nderous  load, 
but  assumed  a  decidedly  spiritual  character." 

In  July,  1847,  Mr.  Gary  was  succeeded  as  superintendent 
of  the  mission  by  the  Rev.  William  Roberts.  Trior  to  this, 
and  in  the  spring  of  that  year,  Mr.  Gary  had  disposed  of 
nearly  all  the  live  stock  of  The  Dalles  mis.sion  station,  and 
was  negotiating  with  Dr.  Whitman  for  the  transfer  of  the 


METHODIST   Kl'lSCOrAL  CllLKCU  ;35:{ 

station  itself.  Mi*.  Roberts  in  contimiation  of  the  policy 
manifested  by  his  predecessor,  followed  uj)  tliese  negotia- 
tions, until  in  August  an  agreement  was  made  for  tlie 
abandonment  or  transfer  of  the  station  to  >\'hitman,  to- 
gether with  the  sale  of  a  canoe,  some  farming  utensils, 
grain,  and  houscliohl  funiilurc  for  ilic  sum  of  SdOO;  and 
between  Septendtcr  1  and  10.  1S17,  Messis.  Waller  and 
Brewer,  the  agents  of  the  missioimry  society,  delivered  the 
possession  of  the  premises  to  Wliitm;in.  \\lio  took  actnal 
possession  thereof,  and  i)laced  his  nejiliew,  Teiiin  B.  Whit- 
man, a  youtii  of  seventeen  years,  in  charge,  while  he  pi-o- 
ceeded  to  his  mission  station  at  Wailatpu. 

Dr.  Whitman  was  not  a  ministei-,  but  at  the  time  of  the 
transfer  of  this  station  to  him  it  was  understood  and 
expected  that  religious  services  and  instruction  would  in 
some  way  be  kept  uj)  thei-e  for  the  benetit  of  the  Indians; 
but  there  was  no  legal  obligation  to  that  elfect,  nor  did  the 
missionary  society,  or  its  agents.  li:ive  any  intention  or 
exj)ectation  of  returning  or  occupying  the  station,  if  such 
services  and  instruction  were  not  furnished,  nv  otherwise. 
In  pursuance  of  the  settled  |»oli(  y  of  ilie  niissionaiy  society, 
the  station  was  abs<dutely  and  inuiuiilitiedly  Mbauiloned  to 
Dr.  Whitman,  without  any  reservati()n  or  right  to  resume 
the  possession  under  any  circumstances.  At  the  time  the 
missionary  society  abandoned  this  station  there  were  about 
seventy  acr(\s  under  some  kind  of  inclosure.  about  one  half 
of  which  bail  been  under  ctdtivatioii.  There  were  six  nioiler- 
ate-sized  buildings  upon  the  premises,  a  dwelling,  meeting- 
house, schoolhouse,  and  storehouse,  barn  and  w  <»iksho|». 
built  of  logs,  except  the  dwelling,  which  was  a  tranie  lilletl 
in  wifli  adobe.  Tlu'se  buildings  were  plain  an<l  constructed 
mostly  with  Indian  labor,  and  <lid  not  cost  to  exceed  .'"Jl.OOO, 
at  which  valuation  they  were  a  Iterw  ard.  on  .lunc  HI.  ISCII. 
paid  for  by  the  rnite<l  States,  upon  a  claim  ami  estimate 
of  the  defendant  to  that  elVecl. 

On  November  20,  1847,  I  >r.  Whitman  ami  others  were 
inur<lered  at  AVailalpn.  I»y  tiic   Indians  uj'  that   station,  and 


354  Tin:  CINIL   I.AW  AND  Till:  ("IUKCII 

this  w;is  followed  by  wli;il  is  known  ;is  tlu3  Cayuse  War,  in 
which  the  jK'ople  of  Oregon,  under  Ihe  j)rovisional  govern- 
ment, undertook  to  chastise  the  Cayuse  Indians  for-  this 
massacre.  By  midsniniiier  of  ISIS  hostilities  had  ceased 
and  i»eace  was  established. 

About  December  1(5  ]*errin  B.  Whitman,  who  had  re- 
nuiined  in  charge  of  the  station  at  The  Dalles,  being  aj»i»re- 
liensive  of  danger,  left  for  the  WiManietle  ^'alley,  taking  with 
him  Mr.  Alanson  Hinman,  whom  his  uncle  liad  sent  there 
from  AVailatpu  in  October  as  a  farmer  and  housekeeper. 
A  detachment  of  volunteers  soon  after  occu])ied  the  j)i-em- 
ises,  with  the  permission  of  said  Whitman,  and  it  remained 
in  the  possession  of  the  troops  of  the  ]>rovisional  govern- 
ment until  they  were  withdrawn  from  the  country  as  stated. 
Thereafter  the  premises  remained  unoccupied,  except  occa- 
sionally by  passing  travelers  and  immigrants,  until  the 
si)ring  of  1850,  when  a  military  post  was  established  there 
by  the  United  States,  and  the  premises  included  in  a  mili- 
tary reserve. 

The  court  held  that  the  missionary  society  had  not 
acquired  the  title  to  this  station  on  August  14,  1848,  under 
the  act  of  that  date.  It  had  abandoned  the  i>lace  volun- 
tarily and  without  any  expectation  or  intention  of  reTurn- 
ing,  and  was  no  more  within  the  i)urview  or  operation  of 
the  act  than  if  it  had  never  been  upon  the  ground.  The 
grant  under  that  statute  applied  only  to  such  stations  as 
were  occupied  on  August  14,  1848.  Tlie  missionary  society 
did  not  then  occupy  the  i)remises.  Prior  to  August  14, 
1848,  there  could  be  no  such  possession  of  lands  in  Oregon, 
because  the  legal  title  was  in  the  United  States.  Occupancy 
or  actual  possession  was  the  only  interest  anyone  then  had 
in  the  lands  in  Oregon,  and  when  that  was  given  up  or 
abandoned,  the  relation  of  the  party  to  the  land  was  abso- 
lutely terminated,  and  it  was  open  to  occu])ation  by  the  next 
comer  as  though  the  foot  of  man  had  never  been  upon  it. 
The  grant  by  the  act  of  1848  applied  to  stations  then  occu- 
lted for  missionary  purposes. 


METHODIST   HPISCOI'AL  (HI  K('ll  355 

By  an  art  of  (Congress  passed  on  ilic  Kiili  day  of  .hine,  18G0 
the  iiiissioiiaiy  society  received  from  the  United  States 
120,000  ill  satisfaction  of  its  claim  for  one  half  of  the  prem- 
ises, and  the  value  of  the  imiirovements  thereon,  whet  her 
destroyed  by  the  volunteers  under  the  provisional  govern- 
ment, or  Indians,  or  the  United  States  troojis.  and  estiiiinted 
by  it  at  |4,000. 

The  court  said  that  the  patent  obtained  by  the  missionary 
society  in  1875  was  wrongfully  issued,  and  the  society  was 
not  entitled  to  retain  the  property,  but  was  reijuiivd  lo 
release  and  convey  it  to  the  persons  claiming  title  to  it  in 
this  case.  Dalles  City  v  Missionary  Society  M.  K.  Church. 
6  Fed.  :{5(;. 

Property  to  Be  Held  in  Trust.  Under  the  terms  of  the  Dis- 
cii)line  it  is  i)i()vidcd  that  conveyances  of  real  estate  for  the 
erection  of  houses  of  worship  shall  be  in  trust,  to  be  used, 
kept,  maintained,  and  disposed  of  as  a  place  of  divine  wor- 
ship, etc.,  subject  to  the  discijiline,  usage,  and  ministerial 
appoinhnents  of  said  church.  Trustees  of  a  local  society 
who  have  advanced  money  or  are  responsible  for  any  sums 
of  money  on  account  of  building  a  house  of  worsliij)  or  are 
obliged  to  ]>ay  such  sums  of  money,  are  authorized  either  to 
mortgage  or  to  sell  the  premises  after  notice  given  to  the 
pastor.  The  local  trustees  are  to  hold  all  the  church  prop- 
erty.    Bushong  V  Taylor,  S2  Mo.  (i(iO. 

Separation,  Church  South,  Plan  Final.  It  is  manifest  that 
the  plan  of  separation  was  a  plan  of  peace,  to  end  strife; 
and  the  relations  of  the  (,'ouferences,  churches,  stations,  and 
societies  along  the  defined  and  .sj)ecitied  border,  hcin^  (uice 
settled  by  the  choice  of  those  authorized  so  to  icI.  I»y  adher- 
ing to  the  one  side  or  the  other,  was  linal  and  conclusive, 
and  could  never  after  be  changed,  or  counteracted,  nntler 
or  by  virtue  of  that  plan  and  authority.  Now  it  is  contem- 
jdated  to  keep  tlu;  (piestion  oi)en  to  be  shifting  tr(»ni  siile 
to  side,  from  time  to  time,  as  one  side  or  the  other  may 
have  a  majority.  Such  a  const rnct ion  wonhi  lu*  to  defeat 
the  end  in  view  of  i)eace  and  settlement,  increase  the  di.sseu- 


:ir.(;        'I'lii:  cix  ii.  law  .\.\i»  riii;  (  iii  i:(  ii 

sioiis  .1111(111^  llir  |M'o|»l('.  .'Hill  iii;il<('  «(Hiril^i(Ml  \\(»I"S('  coil- 
roniidcd.      \'cii;iltN'  v  ( 'oIliiiM  ii,  'J  W .   \';i.  .".10. 

Separation,  Church  South.  Holston  Conference.  T'ollow  iii}; 
(he  sei);irali()ii  in  ISll,  iiinl  ilic  crccliiMi  of  tlic  M<*tli(Mli.st 
l'>I»is<'(»]>;il  (Miurcli,  Soiilli,  ill  ISI.^),  Ilic  Holston  CoiilVi-ciico, 
one  of  tlic  Border  (Jonfereiices,  dosciilx'd  in  tlie  jilan  of 
separation,  adhered  to  the  Church  Soutli,  and  became  a  part 
of  tliat  oi-^a nidation.  The  hjcal  cliurch  in  .Fonesboro,  Ten- 
nessee, was  ill  this  Conference,  and  Ibis  society  continued 
to  be  a  part  of  the  Churcli  South  until  1805,  when  sonic  of 
its  members,  including  llirce  truslc<'s,  withdrew  from  the 
Church  South  and  joined  the  Methodist  I'^pi.scopal  (Jhurch, 
North.  They  formed  an  organization  and  took  possession 
of  the  local  society's  property,  claiming  it  for  the  Cliurch 
North.  The  trustees  who  remained  in  the  Church  South 
brought  an  action  against  the  trustees  of  the  Church  North 
to  recover  the  property.  It  was  held  that  by  the  action  of 
the  Holston  Conference,  deciding  to  go  with  the  (/hurch 
South,  the  title  to  the  local  property  passed  to  lliat  organ- 
ization. This  situation  was  not  affected  by  the  withdrawal 
from  the  local  society  of  a  large  number  of  its  members, 
including  three  trustees  and  their  subsequent  connection 
with  the  Church  North.  The  effect  of  such  withdrawal  was 
to  lose  all  iutere.st  as  beneficiary  of  the  ])roperty.  The  trus- 
tees who  were  connected  with  the  Church  South  were  held 
entitled  to  the  posset^sion  of  the  local  church  property. 
Reeves  v  Walker,  S  Baxt.  (Tenn.»  277. 

Separation,  Title  to  Local  Property.  Pending  a  controversy 
over  the  title  to  the  church  property  between  representa- 
tives of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United 
States  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  the 
county  court  appointed  trustees  of  the  local  society  repre- 
senting the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United 
States.  In  an  action  of  ejectment  by  these  trustees  against 
persons  claiming  the  property  as  representing  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  it  was  held  that  the  plaintiffs 
could  maintain  an  action  although  ajipointed  by  the  court. 


METHODIST  lOI'lSCOI'AI.  ClirRCH  :):>! 

That  their  appoiiitmeiit  was  a  sulijoct  ol  a]>i>i3al,  but  couhl 
not  be  questioned  collaterally  nor  in  the  pending  action. 
Kreglo  V  Fulk.  :!  W.  Va.  74. 

Separation,  1844,  Home  Rule  as  to  Future  Relation.  By  the 
plan  of  separation  it  was  agreed  that  wirliiii  the  territory 
of  any  of  the  Borih'r  Conferences  a  iiiajorily  of  the  society, 
or  Conference  within  which  any  church  property  lay,  might 
determine  for  itself  to  which  body  it  would  become  attached. 
Venable  v  roirniaii,  2  W.  \'a.  .".lO. 

Separation,  When  Property  Cannot  Be  Transferred  to  Church 
South.  In  1851  ])roperty  was  conveyed  to  this  society  to  he 
u.sed  for  religious  purposes  according  to  the  rules  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  Methodist  Episcojial  Church.  In  18(i<)  live  of 
the  trustees  of  the  society  joined  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  and  attemjiled  to  transfer  the  property'  to 
that  denomination  by  opening  the  hou.se  of  wor.ship  to  its 
ministers,  and  submitting  to  its  Discipline.  In  ISdd  ilie 
Quai'terly  Conference  adopted  a  resolution  <lirecting  legal 
proceedings  to  remove  the  seceding  trustees.  This  society 
was  within  the' limits  of  the  Baltimore  Conference.  There 
was  no  evidence  that  this  congregation  IkmI  ever  voted  to 
leave  the  Church  North  and  attach  it.sell  lo  tlie  Church 
South.  It  was  held  that  while  any  nuMubers  of  (lie  church 
might  leave  this  society  and  join  the  Church  South  the 
action  of  the  trustees  in  attempting  to  transfer  the  society 
to  the  Southei-n  denomination  was  invalid,  aiul  the  local 
society  continued  to  be  a  i>art  of  the  Church  North.  The 
seceding  trustees  were  removed  by  the  court,  and  other  trus- 
tees were  ai)])oiuted   in   their  place.      \'(ii;ihh'   \    ColVman, 

2  w.  \'a.  :no. 

Tennessee  Annual  Conference.  Test ;H or  iKMiueailicd  .i  por- 
tion of  his  estate  to  the  Tennessee  Annual  Conrereuic,  foi" 
the  benefit  of  inslilutions  of  learning  under  its  superinten<l- 
ence,  and  to  the  Missionary  Society  of  tlie  Meliiodisl  lOpis- 
copal  Church,  and  to  be  othciwise  disposed  of  .is  the  Ten- 
nessee Annual  Confei-ence  may  di'cin  brsi   in  thcii-  wisdom. 

The  testator  died    in    IS  HI.      In    is  II    the    l.c'dslatiire  of 


.•{58        'I'm;  (IN  iL  i>A\v  AM)  Til  10  cmijrii 

TciiMcsscc  |t;iss('(I  ;i  privah'  ad  iii((»rj)()j'al  iiig  certain  \H-y- 
sons  as  Inislccs  to  irccive  this  bequest.  The  deviHe  to  the 
('(Hircrciicc  was  lichi  iiiojx'rativc  and  void,  for  tlie  n-aHoii 
that  the  devise  exliihited  only  a  general  indefinite  imrjiose 
of  cliaril.v  I)olli  as  lo  ])ei-sons  an<l  ohjeels.  The  act  of  the 
J.egislalnre  of  1S41,  creating  the  trustees  of  the  Conference 
was  held  unconstitutional  and  void.  Green  v  Allen,  5 
IIunii>.  (Tenn.  i   170. 


METHODIST   EPISCOPAL   CHURCH,   SOUTH 

Origin,  historical  sketch,  359. 

( )iguuization,  3G1. 

Baltimore  Conference,  3til. 

Book  Concern,  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  interest  in,  how  adjusted,  'M\il. 

Border  society,  3G;3. 

Church  edifice,  change  of  site,  effect,  304. 

Corvallis  College,  Oregon,  304. 

Liability  for  local  debts,  364. 

Missions,  365. 

Property,  division  of  general  church,  effect,  365. 

Property,  secession,  effect,  305. 

Property,  when  withdrawing  members  cannot  change  title,  367. 

Property,  who  may  enforce  trust,  368. 

PubU.shing  house,  ta.xation,  308. 

Origin,  Historical  Sketch.  In  Gib.son  v  Aiiu.strong,  7  B. 
Moil.  (Ky.)  481,  the  Court  of  Ai)i)eals  of  Kentucky  coiisi<l- 
ered  several  questions  <i;rowiii<>j  out  of  the  division  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  following  the  General  Conler- 
ence  of  1844,  resulting  in  the  erection  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South.  The  division  was  one  of  the  conse- 
quences of  the  agitation  concerning  slavery,  which  had  con- 
tinued several  years,  especially  in  llic  NortlitMii  States. 
This  agitation  cidniinated  in  the  action  of  the  (Jeneral  Con- 
ference of  1844,  which  in  ciVcct  authorized  the  separation  (»r 
the  Southern  jiortion  of  tlic  chmcli.  and  the  organization 
of  a  new  cliui'<-Ii  in  the  slavclioldiiig  Stales. 

Many  resolutions  an<l  nienioriais  relative  to  slavery  were 
presented  to  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  and  there  was 
much  discussion  of  <|nestions  relating  to  slavery  and  its 
possible  effect  on  the  future  of  the  denoniinati<Mi.  On  tiie 
5th  of  June  fifty-two  nienibers  of  the  Genet al  C(»iilefeii(e, 
one  from  Illinois  and  tifty-one  from  the  slaveholding  Stales. 
end)racing  thirteen  Animal  Conferences,  sidmiitted   to  tliat 

.359 


:]{\{)        Tin:  cis  il  law  a\i>  'riii;  <iii  i;<ii 

l»u(l_v  a  sliilciiif'iit  (l('(l;iriii^  lli;it  'Mlic  cniit i iiiicmI  ji^itutiou 
on  the  subject  of  shivery  mihI  aholitioii  in  a  portion  of  Iho 
clmrcli ;  the  froiiueiit  action  on  that  subject  in  tlie  General 
Conference;  must  pi'oduce  a  state  of  things  in  the  South 
wiiicli  ren<U'rs  a  conliini;ince  of  Hie  jnrisdid  ion  of  this  (len- 
eral  Conference  ovei-  these  Conferences  in<-onsisrent  with 
the  success  of  tlie  ministry  in  the  slavelioldiu};  States."  Tliis 
(h't  hiral  ion  was  r(Meii'e(l  1(»  a  coniniillee  «it  nine,  whicii.  on 
Ihe  Till  of  June,  submilled  a  report,  wiiich  Mas  adopted, 
relatin<5  to  tlie  separation  of  tlie  Soutliern  ]);irt  of  llie  cliurcli. 

The  report  contained  resolutions  in  elfect  sanctioning  the 
proposed  separation  and  the  ercM-tion  of  a  separate  orj^ani- 
zation  in  the  slaveholding  States,  autliorizing  societies,  sta- 
tions, and  Conferences  in  the  Southern  States  to  determine 
by  vote  wliether  they  wouhl  remain  in  the  original  church 
or  join  the  new  organization,  i)rt)viding  for  tlie  status  of 
ministers  and  members  in  case  thej'  should  elect  to  go  with 
the  Southern  church;  and  i)rovi<ling  also  for  a  division  of 
the  property  and  funds  of  the  Methodist  Kpisco])al  Church 
in  case  the  proposed  separation  should  be  effected. 

A  convention  of  delegates  from  the  Southern  Aniuml  Con- 
ferences was  held  in  Louisville,  Kentucky,  in  May,  1845, 
and  adopted  a  plan  which  formally  constituted  such  Annual 
Conferences  a  "se])arate  ecclesiastical  connection,"  under 
the  name  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

Acting  on  the  authority  conferred  by  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1844,  the  congregation  and  members  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  in  Maysville,  Kentucky,  held  a  meet- 
ing for  the  purpose  of  determining  whether  they  would  go 
with  the  Southern  church  or  continue  as  a  part  of  the  orig- 
inal Methodist  Ejuscopal  Church.  A  majority  decided  to 
place  the  Church  in  connection  with  the  new  Southern  or- 
ganization. The  minority  determined  to  adhere  to  the 
Northern  church.  In  the  foregoing  case  the  court  was 
called  upon  to  decide  which  part;v  in  the  local  church  was 
entitled  to  possession  of  the  church  edifice  and  other  jirop- 
erty,  and  which  was  to  be  deemed  the  true  local  society. 


METHODIST   HPlSCOl'AI.  riUlJCll.  SOI  TU     ;;(il 

The  court,  iu  its  oi)iuioii,  reviewed  the  history  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  various  aspects  of  the  shivery  a}i;i- 
tatiou,  the  action  of  the  General  Confereme  of  1SI4,  ami 
the  organization  of  the  new  Southern  church,  and  held  thai 
a  nuijority  of  the  Maysville  church,  liaving  dccKled  to  ])lace 
the  local  society  in  connection  with  the  new  Southern  orjjjan- 
ization,  that  majority  was  to  he  deemed  to  the  tnic  local 
society,  and  entitled  to  possession  and  control  of  ilic  (huicli 
building  and  ])roperty,  subject  to  regulations  prescribed  or 
to  be  prescribed  by  the  new  general  organization. 

The  court  said,  among  other  things:  "The  original  Meth- 
odist p]piscoi)al  Church  has  been  authoritatively  di\ided 
into  two  Methodist  I*4)iscoj)al  Churches,  the  one  nortli,  and 
the  other  south  of  a  common  boundary  line,  which,  according 
to  the  plan  of  sei)aratioii,  limits  the  extent  and  jurisdiction 
of  each;  each  within  its  own  limits  is  the  lawlnl  successor 
and  representative  of  the  original  clnii-cli,  jtossessing  all  its 
jurisdiction,  and  entitled  to  its  name;  neither  lias  any  imiic 
right  to  exceed  those  limits  than  the  other." 

Organization.  "A  convention  of  delegates  from  tifleeii 
Southern  Conferences  assembled  in  1845,  renounced.  Ity 
solemn  act,  their  connection  with  the  i)reexisting  organiza- 
tion and  jnris<liction  of  the  Ceiieral  Conference  as  then 
constituted,  and  retaining  the  same  faith  and  doctrine,  tlic 
same  rules  and  (lis(ii)line,  and  the  same  form  of  const  it  n- 
tion  and  government,  establislied  for  themselves  a  new  and 
independent  organization,  nndt-i-  ilic  n.inie  ol'  'Tlie  Meth- 
odist E])isco])al  Clmicli,  Sonlli,'  and  a  lu-w  <ienei-al  Conlei"- 
euce  for  that  clnn<Ii."  "The  Southern  tlinrch  retaining  the 
same  faith,  doctrine,  an<l  discii)line.  and  ;is>-nining  the  same 
organi/.ation  and  name  as  the  original  church,  is  not  only  a 
Methodist  I^]iisco])al  Chui-ch  but  is  in  fact  to  the  South,  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  truly  as  thi'  other  church  is 
so  to  the  North,  and  is  not  the  less  so  by  the  addition  of  the 
word  'South'  to  designate  its  locality."  Cibson  v  .\rm- 
strong,  7  B.  Mou.  (Ky. )  4S1. 

Baltimore    Conference.      This    Conference    was    not    ii-pie- 


.KiL'  Till']  (IN  ll>   l>AW   AM)  Tin:  ("III   liCII 

sciiIimI  ill  |Im>  (-oiivciiI  ion  iicM  in  liOiiisvillt*,  Kciil iicky,  in 
Ma}',  IMo,  wliicli  oi'fjanizcd  tlie  MctliodiHt  Ki)iHcopal  ('hurch, 
Soufli,  and  hcinj!;  a  hordrr  ('onlVrcnco,  under  the  jtlan  of 
st'pai'adon  a<ii'('('<l  npon  l»y  llic  (Jeiiei-al  ( 'onlVrence  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  IS44,  it  iiad  tlie  right  to 
detennine  for  itself  its  futiiie  ecclesiastical  i-elations  l»y 
electing  to  continue  its  connection  with  the  old  organiza- 
tion or  attach  itself  to  the  new.  In  1846  the  Baltimore 
Conference  adopte<l  a  resolution  to  a<lhere  to  the  Methodist 
Ei)iscopal  Church  of  the  United  States. 

In  1861  the  Baltimore  Conference  adopted  a  resolution 
based  on  the  anti-slavery  action  of  the  (Jeneral  Conference 
held  at  Buffalo  in  1860,  by  which  resolution  the  relation  of 
the  Annual  Conference  to  the  General  Church  was  severed, 
and  the  Conference  declared  itself  separate  and  indepen- 
dent, but  still  claiming  to  be  an  integral  part  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church.  In  February,  1866,  the  Baltimore 
Conference  adopted  a  resolution  joining  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South. 

The  minorit}'  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  of  1861,  by 
which  the  resolution  of  separation  had  been  adopted,  refused 
to  follow  the  Conference  in  its  independence,  and  organized, 
in  1862,  a  new  Annual  Conference,  known  as  the  Baltimore 
Conference;  and  this  Conference  was  connected  with  the 
general  denomination,  and  it  sent  delegates  to  the  General 
Conference. 

Some  time  after  1866  the  members  of  Hai-niony  Church, 
who  were  present  at  a  meeting,  voted  unanimously  to  join 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  Adherents  of  the 
Church  North  were  either  absent  or  did  not  vote.  After  this 
action  by  the  Harmony  Church  trustees  were  appointed  by 
the  court  and  assumed  the  control  of  the  church  property^ 
admitting  to  the  use  thereof  the  ministers  assigned  by  the 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Ejjiscopal  Church,  South,  and 
excluding  from  such  use  those  assigned  by  the  Conferences 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Hoskinson  v  I'usey, 
(White  V  King  I  32  Graft.  (Va.j  428. 


METHODIST  lOPISCOPAL  rHURCH,  SOrTH     :M]P, 

Book  Concern,  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Interest  in,  How 
Adjusted.  8inith  v  Swormstedt,  1(>  How.  (U.  H.)  288,  in- 
volved qiiestious  relating  to  a  division  of  the  property  known 
as  the  Methodi.st  Book  Concern,  conse<iiient  npon  the  sejm ra- 
tion of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  into  two  factions. 
North  and  South,  following;  the  action  of  the  (Jeneral  Con- 
ference of  1844.  It  was  hehl  tliat  an  action  niij^lit  lie  main- 
tained for  a  division  of  tlic  jtropcrly.  iind  tlial  siidi  an 
action  might  be  brought  in  the  name  of  a  few  meinbcrs  of 
the  denomination  representing  llie  whole. 

Bascom  v  Lane,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1089  (Cir.  Ct.  N.  V.  Dist.i 
was  an  action  based  on  the  division  of  the  Methodist  lOjtis- 
copal  Church,  and  the  std).se(iuent  organization  of  the  Metli- 
odist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  for  a  settlement  and  divi- 
sion authorized  by  Ihe  resolutions  of  the  General  Conference 
of  1844.  See  note  on  the  division  in  the  article  on  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  It  was  Iield  tiiat  the  com- 
])lainants  were  entitled  to  share  in  1hc  ])roceeds  of  the  I>(»ok 
Concern. 

Border  Society.  A  church  edifice  was  erected  on  land  con- 
veyed to  trustees  in  18.'i.'>,  within  the  limits  of  tiie  territory 
which  afterward  became  the  Baltimore  Conference  of  tlie 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  The  conv<'yance  was 
not  for  the  use  of  the  chui-ch  at  large,  but  f(»r  the  use  of  a 
particular  congregation  of  that  churcii,  in  tlie  limited  and 
local  sense  of  the  term;  that  is,  foi-  the  mendn-rs  as  such, 
of  the  congregation  of  the  Mi'tiiodist  l>j)iscopal  Churrh,  who 
from  theii*  residence  at  or  near  the  place  of  worship  may 
be  expected  to  use  it  for  that  |)uiiM)se.  The  local  society, 
when  the  deed  was  made,  was  a  jKirt  of  the  Methodist  lOpis- 
copal  Church.  Tiiis  local  society  was  ut){  a  lioider  society 
within  the  meaning  of  the  plan  of  se|>araiion  adopted  by 
the  General  Conference  of  1844.  and  hence  had  no  authority 
to  determine,  by  a  majority  of  its  meudu'rs,  its  adherence 
to  the  Church  South.  The  |»roperty  of  the  chui«h  was  held 
to  belong  to  those  miMubers  who  a<lhered  to  the  Methodist 
Episcoi)al  Church,  and   who  did  not  join   in   tlu'  movenu'iit 


:\{-A         T\\\:  r\\  \  I.  LAW   A  \it  'I'm:  ciiriit  n 

lor  S('|i;ir;i  I  ion.  Ilnskilisun  \  I'liscs.  ;',L'  <1i';i||.  (  \';i.  i  Ills. 
(  While  V   Kin;:  i  • 

Church  Edifice,  Cliaiige  of  Site,  Effect.  I.jind  nv;is  jicijiiiifd 
hv  :i  lociil  sociclv  ;is  ii  pljicc  lor  ;i  lioiisc  of  worship,  \vhi<-li 
WJis  ertM*te«l  thereon.  Allci  \\;ir«l  the  silc  \\;i.s  (•h;Mi;;(Ml,  :in<l 
a  new  house  of  worship  Iniilt  in  anolhei-  part  of  the  town. 
Tliis  change  was  sustained  as  authorized  by  the  rules  and 
discipline  of  the  denomination,  which  were  included  in  the 
orij^inal  deed.  These  rules  authorized  the  trustees  of  the 
local  church  to  sell  its  pi-opertv  with  the  consent  of  the 
(^uai'terly  Conference.     Kilpat lick  v  (Jraves,  51  Miss.  4:)2. 

Corvallis  College,  Oregon.  The  (Jeneral  Conference  had 
and  exercised  the  i)ower  to  appoint  trustees  of  this  college. 
In  1870  the  Legislature  of  Oregon  made  this  college  the 
State  Agricultural  College,  but  it  continued  subject  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Methodist  I'>]>iscoj>al  Church,  South.  The 
college  accepted  the  statute.  In  1885  the  Columbia  Confer- 
eiu-e  aj)pointed  trustees  of  the  college.  In  188(>  the  trustees 
adopted  a  resolution  directing  a  conveyance  of  the  college 
farm  to  the  State,  and  the  conveyance  was  executed  accord- 
ingly, but  without  consideration.  Several  persons,  mem- 
bers of  the  Methodist  l^piscopal  Church,  South,  brought  an 
action  to  set  aside  the  deed.  It  was  held  that  under  the 
charlei'  the  college  had  no  i)Owei'  to  make  this  conveyance. 
Liggett  V  Ladd,  17  Or.  81). 

Liability  for  Local  Debts.  In  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South.  V  Clifton,  :U  Tex.  Civ.  App.  248,  it  was  held  that  the 
Methodist  l]])iscoj)al  Church.  South,  was  an  unincorporated 
voluntai'y  association,  against  whiih  no  judgn\ent  could  be 
rendered  unless  for  the  ]>urpose  of  enforcing  some  etjuitable 
right  which  plaintilfs  had  against  some  i)roperty  held  by 
that  association.  Tlie  action  was  to  recover  the  amount  of 
a  debt  contracted  in  the  erection  of  Waco  Female  College, 
in  Texas,  under  the  authority,  as  claimed,  of  the  Northwest 
Texas  Conference.  It  was  held  tliat  the  church  owned  no 
jtroperty  directly  connected  with  the  enterprise  in  which 
the  contractors  were  interested,  nor  any  fund  which  could 


METHODIST  EPISCOrAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH    .^OS 

be  charged  with  llic  dcUl  ;  lliat  wlialt'vcr  jnojiciMy  was 
owned  by  the  deuouiiiiation  was  held  lor  ]);trti(ul:ii-  cliaiit- 
able  uses,  wliicli  could  Dot  be  diveitcd  to  the  itayincnl  of 
the  debt  in  question. 

Missions.  Testator  gave  all  his  i>ro])erty  to  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  be  used  in  carrying  on 
foreign  missions.  The  devise  was  sustained.  The  Kentucky 
statute  limited  to  fifty  acres  the  (piantity  of  land  wliirli 
might  be  held  by  any  religious  society,  and  s|tecilied  the 
I)urposes  for  which  such  land  might  be  ac(piired  and  used. 
The  restriction  in  the  statute  was  intended  to  pr<'vent  a 
church  from  iaking  ju-operty  tor  its  own  use.  In  this  in- 
stance the  i>roperty  was  given  to  the  church  in  trust  to  be 
used  for  foreign  missions,  and  was  not  for  the  benefit  of  the 
local  societ3\  It  was  held  that  the  limitation  of  the  statute 
did  not  apply,  and  that  the  devise  was  valid.  Kinney  v 
Kinney,  86  Ky.  610. 

Property,  Division  of  General  Church,  Effect.  In  1S4()  land 
was  conveyed  to  the  local  society  at  Mt.  (Jlivet,  Kentucky, 
for  church  purposes,  according  to  tlie  laws  and  Discipline 
of  1he  Methodist  hvpiscojjal  Church.  In  1S4t  the  church  was 
divided,  the  Southern  Conferences  assuming  the  name  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  This  society  ]tasse<l 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  tiie  Southern  organi/ation,  and 
after  that  time  its  ])astors  ^ei-e  apitoinled  by  the  Kentucky 
Conference  of  the  Church  Sonlli.  Certain  i)ersons  claiming 
to  be  members  and  trustees  of  this  society,  and  also  claim- 
ing to  be  membei's  of  the  Methodist  ]"]pisco|»al  Church. 
South,  brought  an  action  to  secure  i)ossession  ol  the  church 
I)roi)erty.  The  court  awarded  the  title  and  jiosM-ssion  of 
the  i)roj)eity  to  the  congregalion  com|M)sed  of  members  ol 
the  Methodist  Episcoi)al  Church,  South.  Ihnnpiirey  v  i>urn 
side,  4  Bush.  (Ky.i  21.-). 

Property,  Secession,  Effect.  In  1S,")1  land  was  conveyed  to 
trustees  intended  for  a  jiarsonage  tor  tiie  use  of  ministers 
of  this  society,  which  ha<l  a  ciiurch  editice  near  the  land  con- 
veyed.    The   i)roperty    was   oc<upie<|    scNcral    y«'ars,    but    il 


::(;(;         'riih:  civil  law  am*  tin;  <'iiri:cii 

:i|)p;ii'('iil  l,v  Wiis  iiol  |)iir('li:isc(|  lor  tlii>  use  ol'  the  (iciioiiiiiia- 
lioii  {i^encrally.  l»nl  only  loi-  tlicf  local  society.  A  diviHion 
ai'osc  ill  tlio  clnircii  diiriii^i;  lii«;  Civil  War,  some  (55  incnihcrs 
wilJKlrawiiijL;,  iii(lii"(riii<;  llic  Inistccs  named  in  the  r<)r('<ioiii^ 
deed.  They  erected  a  new  lioiisc  ol  worsliiji  and  orj^anized 
a  society  in  connection  with  the  Mcihitdist  IO|)iscoj>al  Cliurch 
oC  the  United  States.  The  i-ein;iinin<^  niendxTs,  altout  'M, 
adhered  to  the  Church  South  and  ke|)t  up  their  orj^aniza- 
tion  and  retained  control  of  the  old  house  of  woi-ship.  The 
trustees  named  in  the  deed  of  the  parsonaj;e  ju-operly,  and 
who  had  seceded  and  joined  the  Church  Xoith,  obtaine<l 
])os.session  of  the  parsonage  ])roperty  and  assnmed  control 
of  it.  The  trustees  of  the  old  congregation  brought  an 
action  against  the  seceding  trustees  to  recover  possession 
of  the  ])arsonage  property.  It  was  held  that  the  conveyance 
of  the  ])arsonage  i)roi)erty  under  the  circumstances 
amounted  to  a  dedication  of  it  to  the  local  society  for  the 
use  of  its  minister.  The  seceders  by  their  action  in  with- 
drawing and  organizing  a  new  society  forfeite<l  tlieir  inter- 
est in  the  parsonage  property,  and  were  not  entitled  to  any 
control  of  it,  nor  to  a  division  of  the  ])ro]>erty  luider  the 
Kentucky  statute.    McKinney  v  Ciriggs,  5  Bush.  (  Ky.  i   101. 

Property  was  conveyed  to  the  local  society  in  185S,  to  be 
used  for  religious  purposes  under  the  general  jurisdiction 
and  suj>ervision  of  the  Methodist  K])iscopal  Churcli.  Sourh. 
In  18(55  some  members  of  the  local  society  withdrew  and 
set  u])  for  themselves  as  an  integral  ])art  of  the  church  or- 
ganization, known  as  the  African  Methodist  I'juscopal 
Church  of  the  United  States.  In  1866  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Methodist  Episcoj)al  Church,  South,  iidoi>ted  a 
resolution  "that  whenever  entire  churches  and  congrega- 
tions shall  have  voluntarily  left  us  and  united  witli  tlie 
African  Methodist  E]>isco])al  Cliurch,  the  trustees  be.  and 
they  are  hereby  advised,  to  allow  them  the  use  of  the  house 
of  worship  heretofore  solely  occui)ied  by  them  as  before  they 
left  our  church."  The  members  of  this  local  church  who 
withdrew  took  ])ossession  of  the  house  of  worship  and  used 


MI'/niODlST   lOriSCOJ'AL  rilLK("ll,   SOI  Til     :;(i7 

it  uutii  a  }iaii  of  ilic  colttrcd  jd'oplc  were  cxchiilcd  loi-  llicir 
adherence  to  the  MiMliodist  j^pisco));!!  ('Imirli,  Sontli.  troiii 
ANorsliipiiig-  (JH'ie.  l\  ^va^^  held  that  (lie  secedeis  had  no 
ri<»ht  to  the  possession  or  use  of  Ihc  church  i)roperly,  l»nt 
that  such  title  and  use  remained  in  the  nicndx'rs  who  ad- 
hered to  the  Methodist  I-lpiscojial  (Muirch,  South.  IJrown  v 
Monroe,  80  Ky.  4-1:5. 

Property,  When  Withdrawing  Members  Cannot  Change 
Title.  In  Se])teud»er,  iSlo,  the  trustees  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  iu  Savannah  made  a  deed  ot  certain  land 
to  the  trustees  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
under  an  arran«'enient  bj-  which  the  latter  trustees  ji^reed 
to  erect  on  the  land  conveyed  a  house  of  worsiii])  for  the  use 
of  the  colored  members  of  the  Methodist  Ej)isco])al  Church, 
South.  The  trustees,  grantees  in  the  deed,  erected  a  Intuse 
of  worship,  and  called  it  Andrew  Chai»el.  Tiiis  occnjiancy 
continued  without  interruption  until  the  cai»tuie  of 
Savaniudi  by  the  Federal  forces  in  ISti.").  I'oUowiug  the 
capture  of  the  city  several  members  of  Andrew  Cha|>el 
joined  the  African  Methodist  Episco|>al  Church,  and  ihe 
trustees  of  the  Church  South  permitted  the  African  Meth- 
odists to  use  the  cha]»el.  In  December,  l.SO.").  the  African 
Methodists  ai)i»lied  to  the  (Jeorgia  Conferemc  \\)\-  a  deed 
of  Andrew  Chai)el,  but  the  Conference  replied  thai  it  had  no 
jjower  to  make  the  conveyance,  for  the  reason  that  the  title 
to  property  used  by  colored  Methodists  was  vested  in  trus- 
tees for  the  use  of  colored  nuMubers  of  the  Metliodist  lOpis- 
copal  Church,  South,  so  that  the  (Jeorji;i;i  Confei-ence  has 
no  i>o\\('r  to  convey  the  ])ro|)erty  to  any  olliei-  oi'>i;nii/ai  ion 
whatevei'. 

The  African  Methodists  continued  to  occujiy  the  propei-ty, 
and  in  Septendter,  1S()S,  tlie  trustees  of  the  ("Iniicli  Scuilli 
served  on  the  African  Methodists  a  notice  to  iinil.  but  they 
declined  to  vacate  the  properly  unless  compelled  (o  do  so 
by  law.  The  trustees  of  the  ('huicli  Soutii  ilien  lte;^;iu 
summary  ])roceediu<;s  t»>  recover  possi'ssion  of  tlu'  property. 
It  was  held  that   the  title  to  the  propJM-ty  r<Muaiued   in  the 


'MH        T\\\:  ('i\  II.  LAW  AM)  'riii:  ("iirK<"ii 

(nislccs  of  (lie  Mclliodist  l]|»isco|t;il  Clnirrli,  South,  jiiid 
thai  the  withdraw  a !  of  iiiciiihrrs  of  that  church  did  not 
have  the  cH'cct  to  chanj^c  the  title.  They  cf)nl(l  not  carry 
the  title  with  tlieiii  into  another  or<;ani/>ation.  Oodfrey  v 
Walker,  42  (Ja.  nci'. 

Property,  Who  May  Enforce  Trust.  Land  was  convejed  to 
Inislees  foi-  Ihe  use  and  licneiit  of  the  colored  niendx'rs  of 
llie  Methodist  l]|iis(()|»a  I  (■Jiurcji,  Soiilli.  according;  to  the 
lilies  and  I)isci]>line  of  that  denomination.  In  ISt;.")  the 
Ohio  Conference  of  the  African  Methodist  I'>|»iscoj)al  Church, 
having  extended  its  jurisdiction  over  that  pai't  of  Kentucky 
embracing  Danville,  the  members  of  this  local  society  uiuin- 
inioush'  voted  to  attach  themselves  to  tlie  latter  organiza- 
tion, aud  became  subject  to  its  rules  and  Discipline,  receiv- 
ing the  ])astors  appointed  by  its  authority,  and  otherwise 
exercising  the  functions  and  powers  of  a  local  congregatiou. 
Some  time  afterward  two  menibers  were  expelled  frou)  the 
new  society,  and  thereujton  the  Quarterly  Conference  of 
the  Church  South,  in  the  district  end)racing  Danville,  ap- 
pointed trustees  of  the  original  society.  These  trustees 
bi-ought  an  action  in  equity  to  recover  possession  of  the 
church  i)roperty.  It  was  held  that  the  deed  was  for  the 
benefit  of  colored  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  residing  in  Danville,  and  that  there  being 
no  such  i)ersons,  either  members  of  the  Danville  church  of 
white  people,  or  iu  a  separate  organization  in  connection 
with  the  Church  South,  it  did  not  ai)pear  that  there  was 
anyone  entitled  to  have  the  trust  enforced.  Newman  v 
I»roctor,  73Ky.  318. 

Publishing'  House,  Taxation.  This  institution,  located  at 
Nashville,  Tennessee,  was  incorporated  by  the  Legislature  in 
185G,  for  the  manufacture  of  books,  tracts,  periodicals,  etc. 
The  cori)oratiou  was  placed  under  the  numagement  and 
control  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  accord- 
ing to  its  laws  and  usages  adopted  from  time  to  time.  By 
the  Discipline  the  object  of  the  coi-poration  was  to  advance 
the  cause  of  Christianity  bv  disseminating  religious  knowl- 


METHODIST  loriscorAi.  ciiiKcJi.  SOUTH    ;:(;i) 

edge  and  nseliil  literary  and  s<ientilir  information  in  tlie 
form  of  books,  tracts,  periodicals,  etc  IJy  tlie  sixtli  restric- 
tive rule  contained  in  the  Discipline  it  was  provided  that 
the  "General  Conference  shall  not  appropriate  the  j)rodnce 
of  the  publishing  house  [referring  to  this  corj)oration]  to 
any  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit  of  the  traveling  su])er- 
nunierarj',  sujierannuated,  and  worn-out  ])reachers,  their 
wives,  widows,  and  children." 

It  seems  that  in  181*0  about  one  lifty-sixth  part  of  tlie 
proceeds  of  the  Publishing  House  was  <lerived  from  the  pub- 
lication of  secular  books.  All  the  proceeds,  Irom  whatever 
source  derived,  were  devoted  to  the  objects  stated  in  the  Dis- 
cipline. It  was  held  that  the  publication  of  secular  books 
did  not  deprive  the  corporation  of  its  religious  character, 
but  that  it  was  a  religious  institution,  being  organized  as 
an  arm  or  agency  of  the  church,  and  carrying  forward  its 
work,  and  esi)ecially  in  accumulating  funds  for  the  relief 
of  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children, 
and  that  the  property  of  the  corporation  was  exempt  from 
taxation.  Methodist  ICpiscopal  Church,  South  v  Ilinton, 
92  Tenu.  188. 


METHODIST  PROTESTANT  C^HURC'H 

General  C'onfcrcnoc,  when  entitled  lo  i)ropcrty  of  extinct  cluirc-b,  370. 
Property,  forfeiture,  free  seats,  370. 
Property,  secession,  effect,  370. 
Property,  title  in  Irustecs,  effect,  371. 

General  Conference,  When  Entitled  to  Property  of  Extinct 
Church,  liy  I  lie  l.iw  of  the  (Iciicral  CoiifereiKe,  the  jhoikmIv 
of  any  fliunh  Avhicli  should  become  extinct  .should  become 
vested  in  the  General  Conference,  and  a  church  is  considere<l 
extinct  when  there  are  not  sufticient  members  to  fiil  its 
offices.  The  society  by  a  vote  of  all  except  two  of  its  mem- 
bers, voted  to  establish  an  indei)endent  church.  It  was  held 
that  the  two  members  who  did  not  join  tlie  independent 
movement  constituted  the  cliurch,  and  being  too  few  to  fill 
the  offices,  the  property  of  the  church  was  forfeited  and  be- 
came vested  in  the  General  Conference.  A]>iteal  of  First 
Methodist  Protestant  Church,  Scranton,  10  Wkly.  Cas.  N. 
(Pa.)  245. 

Property,  Forfeiture,  Free  Seats.  Woodworth  v  Payne,  74 
K.  Y.  11)(),  considers  a  provision  in  a  deed  of  land  for  a 
church,  declaring  that  seats  in  the  church  should  always 
be  free,  and  if  such  seats  were  rented  or  sold,  tlie  title  to 
the  i)roi)erty  should  revert  to  the  grantor.  The  church  being 
in  debt,  sold  the  property  by  order  of  the  court,  to  its  min- 
ister, and  services  were  continued  as  before  the  sale,  the 
seats  being  free.  It  was  held  that  the  sale  and  change  of 
title  did  not  under  the  circumstances  create  a  forfeiture  and 
liie  property  did  not  revert  to  the  grantor.  Tliis  dee<l  was 
considered  again  in  Southwick  v  New  York  (^Miristian  Mis- 
sionary Soc,  151  A.  I>.  11(5;  affirmed  211  N.  Y.  515. 

Property,  Secession,  Effect.  In  ISr.O  land  was  conveyed  to 
trustees  for  the  exclusive  use  and  IxMietit  of  the  local  con- 

370 


MI<:T1I01)IST  1'Kuti:stant  CHUKCII  :;7I 

gregatioii.  In  1S71  a  jtait  of  tlie  local  soL-iely  witlKlruw 
theiefi'oin  and  joined  the  Methodist  Ki)iscoi)al  Church, 
South.  The  luinoiity  retained  the  organization  ol"  the  Meth- 
odist I'rotestaut  Cliurch,  and  continued  to  oicnpy  llie  i>i<»|»- 
erty,  until  1880,  wheu  they  were  excluded  Ironi  it,  and  i In- 
doors of  the  church  were  locked  against  them.  The  minor- 
ity, who  had  adhered  to  the  Methodist  I'rotestant  Clinnli, 
were  held  eutitled  to  the  property.    Fiuley  v  Brent,  nT  \  a. 

io;5. 

Property,  Title  in  Trustees,  Effect.  J^and  was  conveyed  to 
certain  trustees  in  trust  for  the  members  of  the  Methodist 
Protestaut  church  of  (Jeorgetown,  to  be  holden  by  them  and 
their  successors  in  otllice  for  said  church  forever,  h*  the 
proper  use  and  beiioof  of  said  church,  agreeably  to  the 
Methodist  Protestaut  Church  I)iscii)liue.  The  Book  of  Dis- 
cipliue  ])rovide<l  for  the  electiou  of  trustees  for  each  church, 
aud  uiade  it  their  duty  to  hold  the  proi)erty  of  imlividual 
churches  iu  trust  for  the  use  and  benettt  of  the  uiembers 
thereof  with  power,  wheu  authorized  by  two  thirds  of  the 
uuile  meuibers  over  twenty-oue  years  of  age.  to  <lispose  of 
property  so  held,  but  ou  uo  other  condition.  It  was  held 
that  the  legal  title  did  not  vest  in  the  church  as  a  corpora- 
tion.   Methodist  Protestant  Church  v  Bennett,  31)  Conn.  29:3. 


MINISTERS 

Call,  373. 

Cull,  ineffective,  voluntary  contributions,  how  disposed  of,  373. 

Calvinisfic  Baptist  Societies,  374. 

Changing  religious  belief,  374. 

Contract,  374. 

Contract,  dissolution,  375. 

Covenant,  what  constitutes  breach,  375. 

Defined,  376. 

Defined,  Congregational,  376. 

Defined,  Massachusetts,  377. 

Deposed,  cannot  occupy  church,  377. 

Deposed,  status,  378. 

Dismissal,  378. 

Dissolving  relation,  379. 

Ecclesiastical  council,  380. 

Education,  380. 

Examination  and  license,  380. 

Exclusion  from  church  edifice,  381. 

Excommunicated,  when  society  may  not  employ,  386. 

Excommunication,  expulsion,  387. 

Excommunication,  387. 

Exemption  from  jury  duty,  387. 

First  settled,  387. 

General  rights,  387. 

Heresy,  388. 

Intruding  into  church,  388. 

Land  gi-antcd  for  support.  389. 

Lutheran,  how  chosen,  389. 

Marriage  ceremony,  right  to  perform,  390. 

Member  of  association,  392. 

Obhgation,  393. 

Office,  not  pubUc,  393. 

Office  not  a  vested  property  right,  393. 

Ordination,  394. 

Parish,  394. 

Parish,  incumbent's  title  to  property,  394. 

Pastoral  relation,  395. 

Pastor  defined,  395. 

372 


MINISTERS  373 

Pastor's  ODinions,  305. 

Presbyterian  rule,  395. 

Priest's  profession  his  property,  396. 

Protestant,  3%. 

Public  duty,  396. 

Regularity  of  appointment,  396. 

Relation  to  church,  397. 

Relation  to  society,  397. 

Reinstatement,  not  proper  remedy,  397. 

Removal,  398. 

Right  to  occupy  house  of  worship,  398, 

Salary,  actions  for,  398. 

►Salary,  devise  for,  398. 

Settlement,  398. 

Statedly  officiates,  meaning,  398. 

Support,  duty  of  church,  399. 

Taxation,  exemption,  399. 

Tenure,  401. 

Terminating  relation,  402, 

Call.  The  term  "cnll"  as  used  in  the  statutes  of  New  York 
is  dei'ived  from  the  constitution  of  the  Kcformed  Dulch 
Church;  and  when  it  is  made  it  must  necessarily  conlaiii 
an  offer  of  salary  and  specify  the  views  and  wishes  of  tlio.se 
tendering  it  for  the  i)roi»osed  incumbent's  consideration; 
and  if  the  terms  be  accepted,  the  call  becomes  the  contract 
between  the  church  and  him.  Tpon  the  makin<j  of  the  con- 
tract, the  call  is  complete.  Ihnnbcrt  v  St.  Steplu'u's  Churcli, 
N.  Y.,  1  Edw.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  :i08. 

A  call  signed  by  tliree  elders  and  one  trustee,  according 
to  the  form  ]»rovid<'d  by  the  Presbyterian  (Miui-ch,  was  lield 
to  create  a  claim  against  the  congregation,  and  the  ollici-rs 
signing  the  call  were  not  individually  lialde  for  Ihe  salary. 
It  seemed  that  the  call  referred  exclusively  to  the  spiiitual 
concerns  of  the  congregation.  Taddock  v  Brown,  ('»  Hill 
(N.  Y.)  530. 

Call,  Ineffective,  Voluntary  Contributions,  How  Disposed  of. 
Where  the  officers  and  majority  of  a  congregalion  adhere  in 
good  faith  to  a  jiastor  who  is  snbst'ciucntly  declare*!  by  a 
court  of  equity'  not  to  be  entilled  to  the  ollice  of  ]>astor,  the 


;;7i        Tin;  ri\  il  law  A.\h  Tin:  ciirKcii 

olliccrs  will  iiol  he  rccniiicd  to  mcuiiiit  lo  the  Ici^jil  jiwstor" 
for  the  moneys  i-eccived  by  lliciii  :is  voliiiil;n-y  coiitrilnitions 
for  tlic  support  of  the  jiaslor  to  wIkmii  tlicy  adlirrcil.  Thoy 
innst,  however,  aiMonnt  foi-  tlie  emit ribut ions  and  colhMtions 
for  general  |»nrposes  of  the  churcli  (•or])oration,  such  as  mis- 
sionary, educational  funds,  etc.  Hliem  v  Schultz,  170  I'a. 
50:?. 

Calvinistic  Baptist  Societies.  It  is  the  usage  of  Calvinistic 
Baptists  to  ordain  their  clei-gymen  to  the  work  of  evangel- 
ists or  ministers  of  the  gospel  at  large,  and  not  as  ministers 
of  any  particular  churches  or  congregations,  and  they  pi-each 
the  gospel  and  administer  the  ordinances  by  virtue  of  that 
general  authority,  and  not  in  consequence  of  their  connec- 
tion, by  church  membershiji,  with  a  particular  church. 
Baptist  Church,  Hartford  v  Witherell.  '.i  T'aige.  Ch.  (N.  Y.) 
290. 

Changing  Religious  Belief.  If  the  minister  adopts  a  new 
system  of  divinity,  the  jiarish  retaining  their  former  reli- 
gious belief,  so  that  the  minister  would  not  have  been  settletl 
on  this  present  system,  the  parish  have  good  cause  to  com- 
plain. By  the  change  in  the  opinions  of  their  minister  they 
are  obliged  to  hear  doctrines  which  they  disapjuove  and 
which  they  do  not  believe.  Such  a  situation  presents  a 
proi)er  case  between  the  minister  and  the  parish  for  the 
advice  of  an  ecclesiastical  council.  Burr  v  First  Parish  in 
Sandwich,  11  Mass.  277. 

Contract.  As  the  public  laws  subsisting  at  the  time  and 
place  of  the  making  of  a  contract,  and  iu  force  where  it  is 
to  be  performed  enter  into  and  form  part  of  it,  so  the 
ecclesiastical  laws  and  usages  of  a  particular  religious  de- 
nomination enter  into  and  form  ])art  of  e\Try  contract  under 
which  the  status  of  the  pastor  of  a  church  of  that  denomina- 
tion is  created.  Arthur  v  North  field  Congregational  Church. 
To  Conn.  718. 

It  was  held  in  Charleston  v  Allen,  «J  Xt.  083,  that  the 
engagement  of  a  minister  was  of  a  tenqiorary  and  not  a 
permanent   character,   and   he   was    therefore   not    tlie   first 


MINFSTKKS  :j7r> 

settled  iiiiiiisler  williin  llie  iiiciiiiin^  of  the  N'erniont  clKirler, 
and  was  not  iMilitlcMl  to  tlie  land  set  ajiart  for  the  ministry. 

Contract,  Dissolution.  When  a  minister  eeases  to  be  able 
to  perform  his  ministerial  duties,  in  eonse(i\ienee  of  any 
immoralit}^  or  a  church  censure  for  such  immorality,  it 
may  afford  a  sufficient  reason  for  the  parties  mutually  to 
dissolve  the  relation,  or  for  one  of  them  to  treat  the  contract 
as  forfeited  and  rescinded  by  the  other.  But  when  both 
parties  to  the  contract  are  satisfied,  and  neither  desires  the 
relation  to  be  dissolved,  it  is  not  for  this  court,  at  the 
instance  of  others,  not  parties  to  the  contract,  to  seek  for 
understandin«2;s  and  imjdications  by  which  to  avoid  it,  or  to 
inquire  whether  it  would  conduce  to  the  satisfaction  of 
others  to  have  a  more  acceptable  minister,  or  one  more 
closely  connected  with  the  denomination  to  which  he 
belonjjjs.     Smith  v  Nelson,  IS  Vt.  511. 

Covenant,  What  Constitutes  Breach.  The  society  made  ati 
agreement  with  a  minister  which  jn-ovided,  among  other 
things,  that  he  should  not  "vary  or  go  oil'  from  said  establish- 
ment without  a  nuijor  part  of  the  church  and  society,"  The 
church  was  established  on  the  Saybrook  platform.  In  an 
action  by  the  society  against  the  minister  for  a  breach  of 
covenant  the  court  said  that  it  did  not  api)ear  that  the  cove- 
nant had  been  broken.  They  might,  if  they  saw  lit,  release 
him  or  alter  their  establishment ;  but  otherwise  he  was 
bound  by  this  covenant  to  continue  their  minister  an<l  to 
conform  to  the  rules  and  <liscipline  <)f  said  church,  as  then 
practiced  and  established,  under  certain  ju'iialties.  This 
was  the  extent  of  his  covenant,  and  it  did  not  appeal-  lliat 
he  had  failed  in  any  ]>oint.  It  was  no  breath  on  his  part 
that  the  church,  for  whose  conduct  he  had  not  stipulaled, 
whose  proceedings  he  had  no  jiower  to  direct  or  negate, 
passed  certain  votes,  and  declared  cei-tain  claims  of  the 
consociated  churches  in  JJtchlield  County  nnscriptnral.  It 
did  not  appear  that  the  defendant  has  ever  icfused  t«»  sub- 
mit to,  or  administer  discipline  in  said  chnrcli,  or  to  j»erform 
the  other  duties  of  a  |»astor  thereof,  according  to  the  rules 


:!7(;  IMII:  ("l\  II.  LAW    AM)  TINO  <'in:K('lI 

('sl;il)lislu'<l  iiiid  practiced  llicrciii,  at  the  liiiK;  ol  his  scttlc- 
iiuMil.  Kcclesijistical  S<»cicty  of  Soiilli  l^irins  v  Hockwitli, 
Kiihy  (C\)nn.)  J)l. 

Defined.  A  iiiiiiister  is  oiu;  wiio  liaviii;^  liccii  ordaiiMMl  to 
the  ministry  undertakes  to  perloi  111  certain  services  for 
another.  First  Presbyterian  Churcli,  i'ciry  v  Myers,  5  OI<l. 
809. 

Defined,  Congregational.  As  to  wiiat  constitutes  a  ministei- 
of  the  Con<;re^"ational  jjersuasion,  see  Attoi-ney  (leneral  ex 
rel  Abbot  v  J)nblin,  .'58  N.  H.  450,  cited  in  the  arti<le  on  Con- 
gregational Cluircli. 

The  term  "Congregational  persuasion''  in  a  will  means 
the  same  as  the  term  ''Congregational  denomination."  Both 
terms  refer  to  the  Congregational  polity  without  reference 
to  creed  or  doctrines.  The  meaning  of  the  term  "minister 
of  the  Congregational  persuasion,"  must  be  determined  by 
the  court  as  a  matter  of  law  and  uot  by  the  testimony  of 
witnesses.  Tliis  term  did  not  liave  at  the  time  of  the  trial 
of  this  case,  uor  in  1817,  anj-  local  meaning  peculiar  to  New 
Hampshire,  nor  any  peculiar  and  conventional  .sense  in  the 
usage  of  any  religious  sect  or  jjarty.  The  term  as  used 
in  this  will  is  ''broad  enough  to  include  a  Unitarian  min- 
ister, who  believes  in  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  one 
in  purpose  and  design,  but  not  the  same  in  substance,  equal 
in  power  and  glory;  in  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Clirist  in  the 
sense  that  lie  is  a  divine  person,  but  not  in  his  supreme 
divinity  in  any  sense  in  which  he  can  understand  the  terms; 
in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead;  in  the 
atonement  in  the  sense  of  reconciliation  by  Jesus  Christ, 
but  not  in  the  vicarious  atonement;  in  the  ]>ersonality  of 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  in  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  not 
in  a  supernatural  regeneration ;  that  the  Scriptures  contain 
a  divine  revelation,  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  a  per- 
fect and  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  but  in  no  other 
sense  in  the  full  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures;  in  the  future 
but  not  in  the  eternal  j)unishment  of  the  wicked  ;  in  the 
depravity  of  men,  but  not  in  the  total  depravity  of  the  entire 


mixisti:ks  .".tt 

race;  nor  in  llio  doctrines  of  election,  jM-edestination,  the 
perseverance  of  the  saints,  and  jnstitication,  as  they  are  set 
forth  iu  the  Assembly's  Catechism."  Attorney  General  ex 
rel  Abbot  v  Dnblin,  riS  X.  II.  459. 

Defined,  Massachusetts.  A  teaclier  of  piety,  rclij^ion,  and 
morality  is  a  minister  of  the  gospel  within  the  meaning  of 
the  Massachnsetts  Declaration  of  Rifi,hts.  Baker  v  Fales, 
IG  Mass.  4SS. 

Deposed,  Cannot  Occupy  Church.  This  society  was  organ- 
ized nnder  tlie  act  of  1S1:{,  by  the  name  of  ''The  Trustees  of 
the  First  Presbyterian  Church  of  Dunkirk,  "N.  V.,"  and  in 
the  certificate  the  incorporatois  declared  theniscdves  to  lie 
persons  belonging  to  a  church  in  which  divine  worshij)  is 
celebrated  according  to  the  rites  of  the  rresbyleriaii 
Church.  At  the  time  of  the  commencement  of  this  action 
the  society  was  in  })ossession  of  church  ]»roperty  in  Duidvirk, 
in  which  religious  meetings  were  held.  The  j)astoi',  31  r. 
Adams,  was  duly  installed  according  to  the  rites  and  eere 
monies  of  the  PresbytcM-ian  Chui-ch.  In  the  summer  of  ISSO 
he  was,  by  the  action  of  the  Bulfalo  Presbytery,  of  wliith 
body  he  was  a  mendier,  deposed  from  his  lioly  otlice  on  a 
charge  of  nnsoundness  in  faith  and  do(trin<'.  Put  notwith- 
standing this  deposition  Mi-.  Adams  claimed  the  right  to  olli- 
ciate  as  pastor  of  this  clmnh  in  Dunkii-k,  and  perrorni  all 
the  offices  inci<lent  to  tiie  position.  The  tiaistees.  delcnd- 
ants,  sustained  Mr.  Adams  as  jtastor  of  the  church.  .\  ma- 
jority of  the  members  of  the  congregation  concinred  in  ilie 
l)osition  taken  by  the  trustees  and  ^fi-.  Adams. 

The  plaintilf,  who  i-epi-esented  the  views  of  the  iiiiiiorily, 
applied  for  an  iiijiinclion  reslraining  the  trustees  from 
allowing  the  cliuich  to  be  used  by  Mr.  Adams,  it  was 
clainied  by  the  ti-ustees  that  the  action  of  tiu'  ])resbytery 
in  deposing  Mr.  Adams  was  unjust  foi-  the  reason  that  he 
stood  loyal  to  the  faith  and  doctrines  of  the  denomination. 
The  Dunkirk  church  Itelonged  to  the  Presl)yterian  Church, 
or  denomination,  as  that  religious  oruani/.ation  is  shown 
to  exist  in  this  couiilry,  as  a  sejjarale  and  distinct  ecclesias- 


;'.7.s        Tin:  <M\iL  LAW  AM)  Tiii:  ciirucii 

tical  body,  with  I'nitli  iiiid  doctrine,  i-nlcs,  iisajjcs,  and  dls- 
cijdiiu;  well  uiMlerstood  and  nM-oj^ni/.cd  by  all  its  nuMnbers. 
The  proceedings  against  Mr.  Adams  were  initiated. and  con- 
duete<l  in  full  compliance  with  the  establishe<l  rnles  and 
nsajics  of  the  jn-esbytery  of  which  he  was  a  mend>er.  It  was 
held  that  his  expulsion  from  the  ministry  was  not  the  sub- 
ject ol"  review  or  criticism  in  this  action,  but  the  court  must 
accei)t  the  fact  of  his  dej»osition,  and  determine  tin*  matter 
in  controversy  accordingly.  The  acts  of  1875  and  ISTtl  do 
not  refer  to  the  local  society,  but  to  the  church  or  denomina- 
tion at  large.  The  duties  of  the  trustees  relate  to  the  gen- 
eral denomination  though  administering  the  property  owned 
by  the  local  society.  The  Dunkirk  society  had  no  local 
usage  or  custom  ditferent  from  that  of  the  general  denomina- 
tion. The  trustees  by  attempting  to  maintain  a  deposed 
minister  violated  the  duty  imposed  on  them  by  the  statute, 
and  an  injunction  was  proj)erly  granted  restraining  them 
from  allowing  the  use  of  the  church  edifice  by  a  deposed 
nunister.     Isham  v  Fullager,  14  Abb.  N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  363. 

Deposed,  Status.  In  Kobert.sou  v  Bullions,  9  Barb.  (X.  Y.  i 
64,  aflBrmed  11  N.  Y.  243,  it  was  held  that  a  court  of  equity 
might,  upon  the  application  of  a  portion  of  the  corporators 
in  a  religious  society,  restrain  the  trustees  from  applying 
the  temporalities  of  the  corporation  to  the  sujjport  of  a 
person  as  minister,  who  has  been  deposed  from  the  ministry, 
by  the  proper  ecclesiastical  tribunal,  and  who  is  still  under 
sentence  of  deposition. 

Dismissal.  In  Sheldon  v  Congregational  Parish,  Easton, 
24  Pick.  (Mass.)  281,  the  court  said  there  were  three  estab- 
lished causes  of  forfeiture.  First,  an  essential  change  of 
doctrine;  second,  a  willful  neglect  of  duty;  and,  third, 
immoral  or  criminal  conduct.  The  contract  is  a  mutual  one. 
Its  obligations  are  reciprocal  and  dependent.  If  the  pastor 
neglects  or  voluntarily  renders  himself  incompetent  to  per- 
form his  duties  to  his  parishioners,  they  are  absolved  from 
their  obligations  to  him,  and  thus  the  contract  is  terminated. 
It  is  not  every  trifling  deviation  from  duty,  every  aberration 


MTNISTIORS  ::7:» 

from  strict  propriety  which  will  warrant  llie  disiiiissioii  of 
a  minister.  The  refusal  of  a  minister  to  comply  with  the 
request  of  his  j)arish  that  he  would  make  exchanges  with 
other  ministers  in  the  vicinity  is  not  a  suflicient  ground  for 
a  recommendation  by  an  ecclesiastical  council  that  his  con- 
nection with  the  parish  be  dissolved.  A  clergyman  has  a 
right  to  select  his  own  associates,  and  to  regulate  his  own 
intercourse,  whether  social  or  professional,  without  incur- 
ring a  forfeiture  of  his  otlice.  Whether  he  shall  officiate  in 
his  own  puljtit  wholly  himself,  or  invite  others,  and  whom 
he  shall  invite,  are  matters  which  he  may,  within  reason- 
able bounds,  regulate  by  his  own  discretion. 

A  minister  of  the  gospel  or  preacher  who  is  employed  for 
a  given  time  by  his  congregation  is  entitled  to  be  retained 
as  the  minister  of  the  church  unless  be  loses  that  right  by 
some  fault  of  his  own,  and  for  cause;  he  may  be  dismissed 
by  the  parish,  but  he  cannot  be  dismissed  arbitrarily,  as 
there  is  no  legal  distinction  between  a  contract  witli  a  min- 
ister and  his  congregation  and  any  other  civil  contract  for 
personal  service.  Congregation  of  the  Children  of  Israel  v 
Peres,  2  Coldw.  (Tenn.)  G20. 

Dissolving  Relation.  A  pastor  was  called  and  accepted 
the  call  in  the  form  required  by  the  constitution  of  the 
church.  It  was  held  that  the  contract  w  as  not  terminable 
at  the  mere  option  of  either  party,  but  that  it  was  to  remain 
in  force  until  terminated  by  mutual  consent  or  in  some  of 
the  modes  specified  in  the  constitution  and  prescribed  by  the 
laws  of  the  church.  Coiniit  v  KeformcMl  Protestant  Dutch 
Church,  54  N.  Y.  551. 

A  dissolution  of  the  pastoral  relation  Ky  onlcr  of  the 
classis  was  sustained  by  the  (leneral  Synod. 

A  written  declaration  by  certain  mcinhcrs  of  the  consis- 
tory refusing  longer  to  serve  as  deacons  or  elders  was  not 
equivalent  to  a  resignation,  esjjccially  where  they  were  after- 
ward recognized  by  the  jtastor  and  continued  to  act  in  their 
official  capacity;  therefore  a  subsequent  attempted  election 
or  ai)i)ointni(Mit   of  oniccrs  to  lake  tlicir  idaccs  was  invalid 


:',s(>        'iiii:  ("i\  iL  LAW  A.\i»  'I'lii;  cin  kcii 

1111(1  iiu'llccdial.  (.'oiiiiil  v  Ivd.  I'loN'shint  iMitdi  ('liiircli, 
54  N.  Y.  551. 

Ecclesiastical  Council.  In  ;i  proper  (.-ase  hcl\v(;<'n  a  iiiiii- 
isler  and  his  parish  lor  the  advicit  of  an  ec(  lesiastical  conn- 
ell,  if  either  party  offer  to  the  other  sneh  a  council,  to  be 
nuitually  chosen,  and  the  othei-,  withont  snfhcient  canse. 
refnse  to  join  in  the  choice,  the  party  ottering  may  choose 
au  ecclesiastical  council,  and  the  advice  of  the  council  thu.s 
chosen,  and  actinji^  fairly  and  lionestly,  will  justify  either 
party  in  adopting  their  result.  Burr  v  First  I'arish  in  Sand- 
wich, 9  Mass.  277. 

Education.  Tlie  training  of  young  men  for  the  Christian 
ministry  includes  that  education  and  advancement  in  learn- 
ing which  form  the  preliminary  preparation  and  discipline 
for  the  sacred  office  of  i)reacliing  the  gospel.  Field  v  Drew 
Theological  Seminary,  41  Fed.  ;{71   (Ct.  C.  1).  Del.) 

Examination  and  License.  Before  a  student  for  the  min- 
istr}'  can  be  licensed  he  must  be  examined  by  the  classis  to 
which  he  belongs,  and  from  which  his  license  is  to  emanate. 
Every  condidate  for  the  ministry  is  under  the  immediate 
direction  of  the  classis,  and  is  to  preach  where  it  directs 
him.  He  is  not  permitted  to  refuse  a  call  from  any  congre- 
gation without  first  consulting  the  classis  for  proper  advice. 
He  is  to  be  admitted  and  ordained  to  the  full  mitnstry  after 
examination  b}^  the  classis.  Before  his  ordination  he  is 
required  to  subscribe  to  a  formula,  promising,  among  other 
things,  to  teach  the  doctrines  of  the  church,  and  that,  in 
case  he  has  any  difficulties  about  such  doctrines,  he  will 
first  reveal  his  difficulties  to  the  consistory,  classis  or 
synod,  that  the  same  maj"  be  there  examined,  and  that  he 
will,  on  pain  of  suspension  from  his  sacred  office,  submit  to 
the  judgment  of  the  consistory,  classis,  or  .synod,  and  that 
either  of  those  bodies  can,  upon  sufficient  grounds  of  su.s- 
piciou,  require  of  him  an  explanation  of  his  sentiments 
respecting  the  doctrines  and  faith  of  the  church.  No  min- 
ister relinquishing  the  service  of  his  own  church,  or  being 
unattached  to  any  jiarticular  congregation,  shall  be  per- 


MINISTHKS  3S1 

mitted  to  preacli  indiscriminately  from  place  to  |)lace  with- 
out the  consent  and  authority  of  the  classis.  No  minister 
can  be  called  to  or  dismissed  from  a  congregation  to  accept 
a  call  elsewhere  without  the  permission  of  the  classis. 
When  a  minister,  from  old  age  or  other  infirmities  of  niind 
or  body,  becomes  unable  to  fulfill  the  duties  of  the  min- 
istry, the  classis  can  declare  him  einrritiis,  and  excuse  him 
from  further  services,  and  still  require  his  congregation  to 
furnish  him  a  supi)ort.  Connit  v  Kef.  l*rotestant  Dutch 
rhurch,  54  N.  Y.  551. 

Exclusion  from  Church  Edifice.  In  Ackley  v  Irwin,  71 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  2:i9  it  was  held  that  the  vestry  had  no  power 
to  exclude  the  rector  from  the  possession  and  control  of  the 
church  edifice.  It  was  further  held  that  the  rector  of  an 
incorporated  Protestant  Episcopal  church  was  a  member 
of  the  body  corporate  and  could  not  be  removed  by  a  vote 
of  the  vestry.  Following  <il)  Misc.  (N.  Y. )  5(),  where  an 
injunction  was  granted  pending  the  trial  of  the  action. 

In  State  ex  rel  McNeill  v  Bibl)  Street  (Miurch,  84  Ala. 
23,  the  court  refused  to  grant  a  writ  of  mandamus  on  behalf 
of  a  minister  regularly  appointed  to  a  Methodist  Protestant 
church,  and  c<>m]>('l  the  chui-ch  to  receive  him  as  its  ])ast()r. 
There  was  no  civil  right  involved,  but  only  an  ecclesiastical 
question,  for  which  the  denomination  furnislicd  jid('(|u:ii(' 
tribunals. 

This  society  (Zion's  (Miurch,  Bay  City,  Michigan)  was 
organized  in  1878,  as  a  branch  of  the  Evangelical  As.socia- 
tion,  and  for  a  time  received  the  jiastor  and  jtresiding  elder 
appointed  l»y  the  Michigan  Annual  Conference. 

In  1882  land  was  conveyed  to  tliis  society.  In  188U  a  new 
house  of  worshijt  was  erected  by  the  society  with  funtls 
raised  by  subscrii)tion  from  members  of  the  denomination, 
preachers,  and  others.  Tlie  cornci-  sdnic  \\:is  laid  according 
to  the  ceremonies  jn-escribed  by  llie  general  deiKtniination 
and  was  dedicated  by  a  bishojt  of  that  denomination.  In 
1889  the  Michigan  AuimkiI  Conlcrcnce  approi)riated  :?50() 
to  aid  in  the  erection  of  a  jiarsonauc  liy  Ihc  Zion  Society  at 


::sL»        Till':  ("I\il  law  and  tiii;  <iii  kcii 

liny  (M(y.  Ollit'i-  IuikIs  were  raised  by  snl»s(ii|»l  ion.  ainl  llic 
parsonage  was  erected.  The  Micliigaii  Animal  Confei-ence 
in  IS!).'}  apj)ointed,  in  the  regnlar  order,  a  jiresiding  elder 
and  a  jjastor  to  Zion's  ('hiirch.  Such  presiding  ehler  and 
j)ast()r  sought  to  use  the  church  edifice  for  the  ])urpoKe  of 
public  worship  but  were  excluded  therefrom  bv  trustees  of 
the  church  and  their  adherents  in  the  congregation,  and  the 
pastor  was  also  exclude<l  from  the  jKirsonagc.  Another 
l)astor,  not  regularly  appointed,  was  jiermitted  to  use  the 
parsonage  and  to  occujty  the  ])ulpit,  and  the  local  church 
authorities  threatened  to  withdraw  the  society  from  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Evangelical  Association  and  become  inde- 
pendent, and  notified  the  Michigan  Annual  Conference 
accordingly. 

In  an  action  against  the  trustees  for  thus  uidawfully 
excluding  the  i)astor  and  presiding  elder  from  the  right  to 
use  the  church  edifice  and  parsonage  it  was  held  that  the 
local  society  was  a  voluntary  association,  connecting  itself 
with  the  General  P]vangelical  Association,  and  was  bound 
by  its  rules  and  discipline.  The  local  society  had  no  right 
to  select  its  o\n\  pastor,  but  was  bound  to  accept  the  pastor 
appointed  by  the  bishop  and  presiding  elders.  The  trustees 
had  no  power  to  exclude  the  pastor  and  presiding  elder  from 
the  church  or  the  pulpit,  nor  dei)rive  them  of  collections  and 
means  of  support  provided  by  the  rules  of  the  church,  nor 
could  the  trustees  ]»revent  the  pastor  from  occupying  the 
parsonage.    Fuchs  v  Meisel,  102  Mich.  357. 

By  the  rules  and  ecclesiastical  government  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  Church  the  right  and  power  to  remove  or 
suspend  a  pastor  is  vested  solely  in  the  synod  ( in  this  case 
Buffalo),  and  its  ministry  for  cause,  and  the  local  churches, 
their  trustees  and  ofticers,  united  thereto,  are  expressly  pro- 
hibited from  making  such  removal  or  suspension.  In  Gram 
V  Prussia  Emigrated  Evangelical  Lutheran  German  Society, 
36  N.  Y.  KJl,  the  ])laintifl'.  Gram.  ])ast()r  of  the  church,  was 
excluded  from  the  church  edifice  by  the  action  of  the  trus- 
tees, wliich  was  ralitied  at  the  same  meeting  bv  a  vote  of  a 


MINISTKKS  nsn 

majority  of  the  members  of  the  society,  and  the  biiUdiii^ 
was  closed  aud  the  doors  locked  l»y  the  trustees.  There- 
upon the  trustees  and  a  majority  of  the  members  of  ihe 
society  renounced  the  ecclesiastical  jjjovernnient  of  the 
Synod  of  Buffalo  and  refused  to  permit  the  i»laintitt"  to 
Occupy  the  i»nipit  or  to  exercise  the  functions  and  dis«*liarge 
the  duties  of  pastor  of  the  church.  It  was  held  that  the 
])astor  was  not  entitled  to  an  injunction  resti-aininjii;  the 
local  society  and  its  trustees  from  employing  another  pastoi'. 

A  minister  who  had  been  appMintcd  to  this  church  was 
rejected  bj'  the  society,  and  he  ait|»lit'«l  for  a  mandamus  to 
compel  the  society  to  rescind  its  ivsolution  refnsing  to 
receive  him  and  to  restore  him  to  his  oflice  as  minister  or 
pastor,  with  all  his  rights  and  emoluments,  and  to  comjiel 
the  church  and  trustees  to  place  him  in  charge  of  the  church 
edifice  and  parsonage.  The  ajjplication  was  denied  on  the 
grounds  that  the  church  property-  was  vested  in  and  subject 
to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  local  church ;  that  no  salary  had 
been  agreed  on  and  that  no  rents  of  the  church  had  been 
directed  to  be  ai)i»lied  to  the  payment  of  the  pastor's  salary 
so  as  to  vest  in  him  a  temporal  right  of  which  civil  courts 
could  take  jurisdiction,  and  on  the  additional  ground  tiiat 
the  questions  involved  in  the  j)astor's  claim  had  not  been 
decided  by  any  church  tribunal.  State  ex  rel  McNeill  v 
Bild)  St.  dnirch,  S4  Ala.  '2:\. 

In  Brunnenmeyer  v  Buhre,  '.V2  111.  18;>,  it  appeared  that 
the  pastor  had  temlered  liis  resignation,  but  thai  at  a  nu-et- 
ing  of  the  church,  regularly  called,  a  resolution  was  adopted 
recpiesting  him  to  withdraw  his  resignation,  and  it  was  w  iili- 
drawn.  He  thereby  continued  to  be  the  regular  ]>astor  of 
the  church,  and  he,  and  those  desiring  to  attend  upon  his  min- 
istrations, had  the  right  to  occupy  the  chnrcli  editice  for 
the  purj)Ose.  The  trustees  closed  the  church  and  jncvenled 
its  use  by  the  jtastor  and  those  aHiliating  with  him.  It  was 
held  that  the  trustees  had  no  j)ower  to  close  the  chui-ch.  and 
an  injunction  was  accordingly  granted  restraining  them 
fi-om  interfering  with  the  regulai-  use  of  ilie  cliiireh. 


;;si         'I'lii:  cin  ii.  law  and  'riii;  cm  k<"1i 

Lainl  was  (((iiNcycd  lo  Inistccs  of  llu?  I'"'irst  (jerniaii 
Socicly  of  llic  Mc'lliodist  Episcctpal  Clinrcli  of  Wyandotte, 
Kansas,  in  trust  to  er<'(l  on  sncli  land  a  lionsj?  or  j)la('e  of 
worship  for  the  use  of  the  members  of  tlie  Methodist  ICpis- 
coi)al  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  according; 
to  tlie  rules  and  discipline  wliich  from  time  to  time  niay 
be  agreed  upon  and  adoi)ted  by  the  ministers  and  preachers 
of  the  said  church  at  their  General  Conferences  in  the 
Uuited  States  of  America,  and  in  further  trust  that  they 
shall  at  all  times,  forever  after,  j)erniit  such  ministers  of 
the  gosj^el  and  preachers  belonging  to  the  said  church  as 
shall  from  time  to  time  be  duly  authorized  by  the  General 
Conferences  of  the  ministers  and  preachers  of  the  said  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  or  by  the  Annual  Conferences 
authorized  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  ministers  and 
preachers  of  the  said  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  or  by  the 
Annual  Conference  authorized  by  the  said  General  Confer- 
ence to  preach  and  expound  God's  Holy  Word  therein. 

A  church  edifice  was  erected  accordingly.  By  such  con- 
veyance and  the  erection  of  the  building  a  trust  was  created 
which  a  court  of  equity  would  enforce.  It  was  held  that  the 
trustees  could  not  lawfully  exclude  a  regularly  appointed 
pastor  from  the  right  to  liold  service  in  tlie  church.  A  writ 
was  granted  compelling  the  trustees  to  admit  the  pastor  to 
their  church  edifice,  and  to  permit  him  to  occupy  and  preach 
in  its  pulpit,  and  to  refrain  from  all  interference  with  him 
in  the  discharge  of  his  duties  therewith  connected.  Feizel  v 
Trustees  of  the  First  German  Society  of  M.  E.  Church.  9 
Kan.  592. 

Under  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  system  neither  the 
trustees  nor  a  majority  of  the  congregation  can  lawfully 
exclude  from  the  local  house  of  worshij)  and  pulpit  a  min- 
ister regularly  appointed  to  the  charge  according  to  the 
rules,  regulations,  and  discipline  of  that  denomination. 

The  society  owned  and  occupied  a  hou.se  of  worship  which 
was  built  on  land  conveyed  to  trustees  for  the  use  of  the 
members  of  a  Metliodist  Episcojial  Church  according  to  the 


MINISTERS  :{S5 

rules  and  discipliue  prescribed  liy  the  (.Jeneral  CoiilcitMue. 
The  trustees,  assuming  to  represent  a  majority  of  ilie  mem- 
bers of  the  congregation,  excluded  from  the  rliunh  editite 
a  miuister  regularly  appointed  to  that  charge,  and  prevented 
his  occupying  the  house  for  the  purposes  of  worship.  On 
behalf  of  the  minister  a  mandatory  injiiiu-tion  was  granted 
restraining  the  tiustees  from  interfering  with  the  use  of  the 
house  by  the  minister  or  the  people  according  to  the 
customs  of  the  denomination.  Whitecar  v  .Michenor,  M 
X.  J.  Eq.  G. 

In  People  ex  rel  Peck  v  Conley,  42  Hun.  (N.  Y. )  1)8, 
:{  N.  Y.  S.  K('i».  :'.T:!,  it  was  held  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
trustees  of  the  First  Metho<list  lOpiscojial  Church  of  Cohoc- 
ton,  New  York,  to  receive  a  minister  duly  ap])ointed  by  the 
bishop  according  to  the  laws  and  usages  of  the  denomina- 
tion, and  to  open  the  nieetingiiouse  to  him  for  the  purpose 
of  conducting  diviiic  woishij*  therein  in  conformity  to  the 
tenets  and  disci]»liii('  of  tiie  r(digious  denonnnation  to  which 
he  belonged  and  to  whicli  the  corjioration  was  attached,  and 
that  in  refusing  to  ((Jumi  the  meetinghouse  the  trustees  vio- 
lated their  duty,  and  a  writ  of  mandamus  was  a  proper 
remedy  to  put  the  minister  in  jjossession  of  the  pulpit  to 
which  he  was  entitled.  The  trustees  refused  to  receive  a 
minister  a]ii)ointed  by  the  l»isli<)])  in  the  usual  manner,  claim- 
ing that  in  regard  to  receiving  a  itrciuhcr  the  society  was 
independent  of  the  higher  chnnli  anthoritics.  and  that  it 
was  optional  with  the  society  wlietlier  it  should  receive  such 
nunister  as  the  Itishdj*  or  the  ]tresi(ling  cldci-  at  the  Animal 
Conference  might  a|i]»oinl   for  them. 

It  was  held  in  People  v  Steele,  2  Harb.  (  N.  Y.  i  :'.!»7.  that 
the  itinerancy  of  tlie  i)riesthood  cnfoiced  by  the  powi-r  of 
the  episcopacy  was  tlie  established  pract  ice  of  liiis  d«'nomiiia- 
tion,  and  that  the  right  of  the  bisho]ts  to  appoint  a  preacher 
for  the  dilferent  churclies  was  well  settled;  conse<pienlly. 
the  refusal  of  the  trustees  to  i-e* cive  a  preachei-  ajiitoinied  by 
the  bisho])  was  an  act  of  insubordination  to  the  ecclesiastical 
tribunals   of    the    church,    and    in    violation    of   one   of    the 


.'{SC  Tin;  ("IN  IL   LAW    A  M  >  'IIIK  (III   i;<ll 

iiijiiiM-l  iuiis  (»r  its  I  >is(i|»Iiii(',  wliicli  i-cliisjil  ;nil  lioii/.cd  llip 
issniii;;'  of  ;i  iMTciiiploi'v  iii:ni(hiiiius  (■oiiiiiiiiiitliii*;  tlicni  to 
iidniit   (lie  jmcik-Iici-  IIiiis  iiitpoiiilcd  into  llic  (-iiiirch. 

Tlio  i)ivsi(l('iil  (>r  nil  Aiiiiiiiil  ('oiifVi-ciM*'  lins  llu*  rij;Iit  dur- 
ing 51  recess  of  ji  ('onfereiice  to  employ  ;iim1  slatioii  niiiiisters 
or  to  till  a  vacancy  witli<nit  the  c<MiseiH  of  tlie  clinrch.  A 
minister  so  ai)poiiil('d  is  entitled  to  he  ;idiiiitted  to  the 
church  edifice  in  oi-cler  to  conduct  therein  i-elij^ious  serv- 
ices according  to  the  rules  and  discipline  of  the  denomina- 
tion, and  a  writ  of  mandamus  was  issued  to  compel  the 
trustees  of  tlie  church  to  open  its  house  of  worship  for  this 
purpose.    Robinson  v  Cocheu,  IS  App.  I)iv.  (N.  Y.  i  025. 

Tn  Lynd  v  Meuzies,  83  N.  J.  Law,  162,  it  was  held  that  the 
wardens  and  vestrj'uien  of  a  Protestiint  Episcopal  Church 
could  not  lawfully  exclude  a  rector  from  the  house  of  wor- 
ship, and  the  i)arochial  schoolhoii.se,  but  that  by  virtue  of 
his  office  he  had  a  right  to  occupy  the  pro|)erty  of  the  church 
in  connection  with  the  performance  of  his  duties  as  rector. 
A  judgment  for  damages  recovered  by  him  in  an  action  at 
law  against  the  wardens  and  vestrymen,  was  sustained. 

Excommunicated,  When  Society  May  Not  Employ.  In  Parish 
of  the  Immaculate  Conception  v  Murphy.  89  Neb.  524,  it 
appeared  that  a  Roman  Catholic  priest  was  excommuni- 
cated and  a  successor  was  duly  appointed  as  rector  of  a  local 
society.  A  large  majority  of  the  trustees  and  congregation 
desired  to  continue  the  services  of  the  excommunicated 
priest,  but  it  was  held  that  the  temporalities  of  the  .society 
must  be  administered  according  to  the  general  laws  and 
usages  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  under  which  the 
higher  authorities  had  the  right  to  excommunicate  the  priest 
and  appoint  a  successor.  The  court  suggested  that  the 
friends  of  the  excommunicated  ])riest  might,  on  their  own 
account,  em])loy  such  priest  as  their  minister  and  attend  his 
ministrations,  but  that  they  could  not  divert  the  property 
from  the  i)urpose  to  which  it  had  been  consecrated.  It  was 
also  held  that  a  minority  of  the  trustees  could  maintain  an 
action  in  the  name  of  the  corporation  to  enjoin  the  majority 


MINISTERS  .-{ST 

from  diverting  the  jdoperty  to  uses  not  sanitioned  \>\  ilie 
laws  and  usages  of  the  church. 

Excommunication,  Expulsion.  The  (jnestion  whether  a  Ko- 
man  Catholic  ])riesl  was  regularly  exconimuuieatejl  and 
expelled  was  held  not  to  be  within  the  jurisdiction  <»r  a 
court  of  equity,  but  was  exclusively  a  (luestiuu  for  the  church 
itself,  and  the  judgment  of  its  regularly  constituled  tii- 
bunal  was  binding  on  the  courts.  St.  Vincents  Tarish  v 
Murphy,  S:*,  Neb.  r,P>0. 

Excommunication.  In  Mason  v  Lee,  96  Miss.  ISO,  it  was 
held  that  a  general  counsel  consisting  of  representatives 
from  several  local  churches  had  no  jtower  to  excoiiiniunicate 
a  minister  for  heresy  of  one  of  them,  without  proof  that  the 
counsel  had  authority  over  the  particular  local  church, 
which  was  congregational  and  independent  in  its  organiza- 
tion and  form  of  government. 

Exemption  from  Jury  Duty.  A  person  who  was  a  regularly 
ordained  minister  of  the  Methodist  KpiscojKil  (*hurch,  luit 
not  settled  over  a  particular  church,  but  belonged  to  tiie 
local  connection  and  was  required  to  officiate  wlienev«  r 
called  ni)on  to  ]>reacli  to  any  chui'di  of  his  <lenoiuinatiou 
situated  within  a  convenient  distance  of  his  place  of  icsi- 
dence,  was  held  to  be  a  settled  minister  and  exempt  from 
jury  duty  under  tlu'  Massachusetts  act  of  1S12,  chap.  111. 
sec.  2.     Commonwealth  v  Buzzell,  ItJ  Pick.   (Mass.)   l.'):'.. 

First  Settled.  To  constitute  a  first  settled  minister  in  a 
town,  so  as  to  entitle  the  j»erson  to  the  right,  as  usually 
reserved  by  the  A'ermont  and  New  llampshii-e  charters,  for 
the  first  settled  minister,  there  must  be  a  specilic  engage- 
ment between  him  and  the  ]»eo])le  that  he  should  remain  per- 
manently in  the  jterformance  of  the  duties  of  a  minisier  in 
said   town.     Charleston   v  Allen.  (»  \t.  iV.\:\. 

General  Rights.  In  I^ngland,  the  jKirson  as  such  has  a 
freehold  estate  in  the  glebe,  the  tithes,  ami  other  (hies  of  the 
jtarish.  By  induction  he  becouu's  fully  invested  with  these, 
and  with  the  right  to  use  them  and  demand  them  ;  but  in  this 
country  there  are  no  such   rights  or  interests  into  which  a 


:{.S8        Tin:  cinil  la\v  and  tiiI':  cik  kcii 

(■l('r<;yiiiiiii  call  I>c'  iiHliictcd.  TIic  |)i'()j)ci-| y  of  tlic  cliiii-tli,  i(s 
I'cvcinics,  its  jj;U'l>o,  its  parsonafj;!',  if  it  liavf?  any,  its  (•liiii-cii 
edilicc,  and  llie  like,  belong  to  the  corporation,  and  the 
clergj man  has  no  rifjhts  or  estate  in  any  of  them,  otlier  than 
such  as  are  conferred  1)y  exjiress  contract,  excei)t  jjerhajis 
the  control  and  i)ossession  of  the  churcli  during  divine  serv- 
ice, as  long  as  the  building  is  retained  by  the  society  for 
tliat  purpose,  altliough  even  tliis  would  rather  seem  to 
appertain  to  the  vestry.  Youngs  v  Eansom,  .*]1  Barl). 
(N.  Y.)  49. 

Heresy.  If  a  minister  ado])ts  and  advocates  religious 
views  at  variance  with  the  articles  of  faith  of  the  denomina- 
tion to  which  he  belongs,  he  forfeits  his  riglit  to  use  the 
church  edifice  for  their  dissemination.  Isham  v  Trustees 
of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  of  Dunkirk,  G3  Howard's 
Pr.  465. 

Intruding  into  Cliurch.  The  church  edifice  occupied  by  the 
society  was  leased  from  the  Warburtou  Avenue  Baptist  So- 
ciety under  a  contract  which  authorized  the  lessor  to  termi- 
nate the  lease  at  an^*  time  in  case  of  any  disagreement  in  the 
congregation  or  the  board  of  trustees  of  the  lessee,  or  other 
cause  which  in  the  opinion  of  the  trustees  of  the  lessor 
might  make  such  termination  expedient.  There  was  dis- 
sension and  dispute  between  the  minister  and  his  congrega- 
tion. The  pulpit  was  declared  vacant  by  the  lessee  church 
and  the  minister  excluded  from  the  church  edifice.  After- 
ward the  nuuister,  on  an  occasion  when  the  house  was  open, 
entered  the  pulpit  and  insisted  on  occupying  it  and  conduct- 
ing the  service.  He  was  removed  by  a  trustee  of  the  lessor 
and  brought  an  action  for  damages.  The  facts  showed  that 
the  keys  of  the  church  had  been  surrendered  to  the  lessor 
and  that  this  society  and  its  trustees  were  in  actual  posses- 
sion of  the  property.  It  was  held  that  the  removal  of  the 
minister  was  justifiable  and  that  even  if,  as  claimed,  the 
contract  between  the  lessee  and  the  minister  had  been 
unlawfully  terminated  by  the  cliurdi,  the  minister  had  no 
right  to  enter  upon  the  premises,  but  must  resort  to  an 


MINISTIOKS  88!) 

action  against  the  society  lor  daniaj^es.  Conway  v  ("ar- 
peuter,  80  Hun.  (N.  Y.)  42!). 

A  clergyman  wlio  is  a  mere  tres[(asser  or  intruder  in  a 
church,  the  congregation  of  whicli  does  not  aeeejit  his  reli- 
gious doctrines  or  teuets,  may  he  treated  as  any  ordinary 
trespasser.     Kex  v  Wasyl  Ivai)ij,  15  Manitoba  Ke.  iL'l. 

Land  Granted  for  Support.  Tlie  oljject  of  tiie  government 
in  granting  a  right  of  hind  to  the  first  scithMl  ndnister  was 
to  encourage  a  minister  to  settle,  and  preaeh  ihe  gospid 
among  the  people  of  the  town,  while  tlie  lands  were  nneulti- 
vated  and  the  inhabitants  few  in  iminhcr  and  nnaide  to  eon- 
tribute  largely  for  the  i)ecuniary  su]>i»ort  of  a  ndnister. 
This  must,  of  course,  answer  the  double  purjxjse  of  encour- 
agement to  the  minister  to  settle  among  them  and  assist  the 
people  to  pay  him. 

The  i)eople  have  no  control  over  tliis  property  directly,  so 
as  to  give  a  deed  that  would  convey  it;  yet  it  produces  as 
much  for  their  benefit  as  would  the  same  amount  of  any 
other  i)roperty  which  a  minister  might  receive  on  settling  in 
town.  The  people  of  the  town  have  an  important  interest 
also,  for  the  nature  of  its  grant  will  permit  them  to  exercise 
it,  in  selecting  a  minister  whose  tastes  and  numners,  talents 
and  piety,  are  calculated  to  render  him  useful  among  them. 

It  is  not  snflicient  lliat  a  nmn  who  is  a  minister  should 
take  up  his  residence  in  town  and  abide  there,  even  during 
life.  It  is  not  sufficient  that  he  should  be  settled  in  town, 
as  a  nmn,  or  as  a  farmer  or  nu'chanic,  but  he  must  be 
settled  as  a  minister.  The  settlement  must  be  for  the  life  of 
the  minister.  There  must  be  ordination  and  also  a  contract. 
Dow  V  Town  of  Ilinesburgh  and  AA'eed,  2  Aikens  (\'t.)    IS. 

Lutheran,  How  Chosen.  This  society  ^^as  incorporated  by 
a  special  act  in  17!)4,  and  was  composed  of  all  those  wiio 
"now  are,  and  all  those  who  shall  be  hei-eafter,  duly  admitted 
or  become  members"  of  that  society  according  to  llie  rides, 
orders,  and  constitution  of  the  same  to  be  formed. 

In  February,  1788,  the  Legislature  incorjiorated  fiffiH-n 
churches  in  the  back  part  of  the  t^tate,  under  the  name  of 


:vM)        tin:  cix  ii.  \..\\y  am>  'riii;  ciiiijcii 

The  Kccl('si;isli(;il  riiioii  of  llic  ScNcriil  (iciiiiiiii  I'lvdcshiiit 
Coiigivjjjitioiis,  coniiioscrl  ill  jcirl  ol'  Liitlicniiis,  in  |i:ii-1  of 
ollu'T"  (}('i-iii;ni    I{(>r<)i-iii('(l,  or  rr('sl)yt<'ri;ins. 

Ill  ISl't  ;i  new  synod  \v;is  oi'<;;nii7,('(l  coniitoscd  in  jcirt  <»r 
representatives  of  the  ori«;;in;il  synod  of  ]  TSS,  hut  it  did  not 
appear  that  St.  I'eler's  \\;is  rcprcscnicil  in  this  syn<»d,  hnt 
became  attached  to  it. 

In  ^S'^^  the  rela1i<»n  bclwcM-n  tlic  syno<l  and  the  jiastor  of 
St.  Peter's  Clmrch  was  dissoIv('<l  by  (he  svikmI  ;ind  tlie  min- 
ister Avasexclnded  from  fnrtlier  service  in  this  congregation. 
Dissensions  having  arisen  in  St,  I'eter's  Church,  an  action 
was  instituted  by  one  party  against  the  other,  to  determine 
which  constituted  the  true  congregation  accoi'ding  to  the 
original  organization.  The  exclusion  of  the  minister  from 
the  synod  was  regular,  but  it  had  no  effect  on  the  congre- 
gation of  which  he  still  continued  to  be  pastor.  Lutheran 
ministers  are  not  independent,  nor  are  they  appointed  by 
the  congregation  only.  Congregations  who,  in  connection 
with  their  minister,  are  not  acknowledged  by  some  synod, 
are  not  regarded,  whatever  they  may  call  themselves,  either 
by  Lutherans,  or  others  well  informed  in  sectarian  distinc- 
tions as  Lutherans,  or  as  having  any  status  in  that  de- 
nomination. St.  Peter's  was  not  independent,  but  acknowl- 
edged synodical  authority.  Tliis  was  the  fair  import  of  its 
charter,  and  the  majority  had  no  power  to  pervert  the 
charter  and  establish  an  independent  organization.  The 
majority  had  no  jiower  to  impose  a  new  contract  on  the 
minority.  The  court  said  the  defendants  had  not  seceded 
from  the  synod,  for  the  reason  that  the  synod  had  not  taken 
the  necessary  legal  stejis  to  establish  the  relation  of  the 
defendants  to  the  church.  The  bill  was  dismissed.  Harmon 
v  Dreher,  1  Speer  Eq.  (S.  C.)  87. 

Marriage  Ceremony,  Right  to  Perform.  T'nder  the  North 
Carolina  statute  authorizing  a  marriage  ceremony  to  be  per- 
formed by  a  regular  minister  of  the  gospel  of  eveiy  denom- 
ination having  the  "cure  of  souls,"  etc.,  it  was  suggested  by 
the  court  that  the  phrase  "cure  of  souls''  did  not  imply  the 


.\il\isti;ks  391 

necessity  that  the  iiiinisier  should  he  the  iiicuinbeut  of  a 
chureb  living,  or  tiie  pastor  oi'  any  congii-galion  in  parlie- 
ular,  but  the  phrase  imports  that  the  jjersou  is  to  be  some 
thing  more  than  a  minister  or  preacher  nit-rely ;  and  that  he 
has  laenlty,  aeeording  to  the  const  it  nt  ion  of  his  cliur«-.h.  to 
celebrate  matrimony,  and  to  some  extent,  at  least,  has  the 
power  to  administer  the  Christian  sacraments  as  acknow  1 
edged  and  held  by  his  cimrch.     State  v  liray,  ;».")  N.  C.  L'S'J. 

A  person  ordained  a  deacon  according  to  the  nsages  of 
this  denomination  ( Methodist  i  ami  commissioned  by  the 
bishop  of  that  chnrch  to  j)reach,  and  to  administer  the 
ordinances  of  marriage,  baptism,  ami  burial  of  the  dead, 
is  an  ordained  minister  within  the  Connecticut  marriage 
act.  ^Vhere  a  person  so  ordained  and  commissionetl  resided 
constantly  for  many  years  in  the  town,  having  charge  of  the 
Methodist  chnrch  therein;  preachii\g  to  them,  at  their  re- 
quest, and  statedly  exercising  all  the  jjowers  ami  jirivileges 
authorized  by  his  commission;  and  they  providing  Inr  his 
support,  by  voluntary  contributions,  during  which  period 
he  owned  and  considered  them  as  his  church,  and  they  owned 
and  considered  him  as  their  minister,  and  local  deacon,  it 
was  held  that  smli  ]»er.son  was  settled  in  the  work  of  the 
ministry  within  the  meaning  of  that  act.  Kibbe  v  Ant  ram. 
4  Conn.  134. 

A  regularly  ordained  Bajttist  minister  and  a  Methodist 
minister  are  aulhori/.ed  to  perform  marriage  ceriMuonies 
under  the  Massachn.setts  statute.  ("oiiini(»n\\ealth  v 
Sj)ooner,  1  I'ick.  (  Mass.  i  l'.",."*. 

A  minister  ordained  over  an  unincor|»orated  religious 
society  composed  of  mend»eis  belonging  to  dillfrenl  towns 
is  not  a  stated  and  ordaiiu'd  luinister  of  the  gospel  within 
the  meaning  of  the  Elaine  act  of  ITSII,  cha|».  ;'..  relative  to 
the  solemnization  of  marriages.  Ligtnii.i  v  Kn.xion.  :.'  Me. 
102. 

In  Connecticut  it  was  held  that  ;i  ministei-  «ould  not  per- 
form a  marriage  cerenM)ny  unless  iie  \\;is  an  ordaine<|  min- 
ister and  .settled  in  the  \\<»ik  of  liu-  niiiiisliy  in  some  place 


:\\)-2        'nii;  <'i\  i  l  law  and  'I'iii:  rinKni 

ill    llic  Sliilc.      Kolicrts  v   Shilc  'riciisnrcr,  2   Itool    iComi.) 

;;si. 

In  ojii'lier  years  in  New  Ijij^latid  oidiiialioii  in  the  0>ngre- 
gational  Cluiirli  was  considered  to  be  the  mere  induction 
of  a  i)erson  into  the  office  of  minister  for  a  certain  church, 
and  after  the  termination  of  this  pastoral  relation  that  the 
virtue  or  effect  of  the  ordination  ceased  also.  But  in  lOTU 
"the  nei«;hl)oring  ministers  at  Cand)rid}fe"  passed  a  vote 
tliat  one  of  their  persuasion  once  duly  elected  and  ordained 
as  a  minister  in  any  Evangelical  church  should  be  ac- 
knowledged in  all  of  them  as  an  ordained  minister.  Under 
this  rule  a  minister  ordained  in  one  church  was  entitled  to 
become  a  minister  of  another  church  without  a  new  ordina- 
tion, and  finally  it  was  held  by  the  church  that  the  force 
and  effect  of  the  first  ordination  always  continued  after  the 
pastoral  relation  was  dissolved. 

The  Presbj'terian  Church  in  New  England  did  not  apply 
the  rule  of  ordination  so  strictly  as  the  Congregationalists, 
but  held,  in  substance,  that  a  minister  once  ordained  con- 
tinued in  this  relation  without  a  reordination  until  his 
ecclesiastical  relations  were  dissolved.  A  Presbyterian  min- 
ister in  New  Hampshire  who  had  been  elected  as  public 
teacher  in  a  local  church,  but  whose  ministerial  functions 
had  there  been  discontinued,  but  who  afterward  occasion- 
ally performed  ministerial  duties,  although  not  settled  over 
any  particular  church,  performed  a  marriage  ceremony  in 
the  county  where  he  resided.  In  an  action  to  have  the  mar- 
riage declared  void  it  was  held  that  the  minister  probably 
had  authority  to  solemnize  the  marriage;  but  if  not.  the 
marriage  was  Valid  as  a  civil  contract,  and  was  sustained 
on  the  ground,  among  others,  that  the  statute  of  New  Hamp- 
shire did  not  require  a  soleninization  by  a  minister  or  a 
magistrate.    Town  of  Londonderry  v  Chester,  2  N.  H.  268. 

Member  of  Association.  The  minister  in  a  legal  point  of 
view  is  a  voluntary  member  of  the  association  to  which  he 
belongs.  The  position  is  not  forced  upon  him ;  he  seeks  it. 
He  accepts  it,  with  all  its  burdens  and  consequences;  with 


MIMSTEKS  39:] 

all  the  rules,  laws,  and  canons,  then  subsisting,  or  to  be 
made  by  competent  authority,  and  can,  at  pleasure  and  with 
impunity  abandon  it.  If  they  were  merciful  and  regardful 
of  conscientious  scruples,  he  knew  it;  if  they  were  arbitrary, 
illiberal,  and  attempted  to  chain  the  thoughts  and  con- 
science, he  knew  it.  They  cannot,  in  any  event,  endanger 
his  life  or  liberty  ;  impair  any  of  his  personal  rights,  deprive 
him  of  property  acquired  under  the  laws,  or  interfere  with 
the  free  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  religious  profession  and 
worship,  for  these  are  protected  by  the  constitution  and 
laws.  While  a  member  of  the  association,  however,  and 
having  a  full  share  in  all  the  benefits  resulting  therefrom, 
he  should  adhere  to  its  discipline,  conform  to  its  doctrines 
and  mode  of  worship,  and  obey  its  laws  and  canons.  If 
reason  and  conscience  will  not  permit,  the  connection  should 
be  severed.    Chase  v  Cheney,  58  111.  501). 

Obligation.  A  minister  of  the  gosjc,'!  is  separaled  from 
the  world  by  his  public  ordination,  and  carries  with  Iiiiii 
constantly,  whether  in  or  out  of  the  pulpit,  sn[>eri()r  ohli^ia- 
tions  to  exhibit  in  his  whole  deportment  the  i>urity  of  that 
religion  which  he  professes  to  teach.  Sheldon  v  Congrega- 
tional Parish,  Easton,  24  Tick.  (Mass.)  281. 

Office,  Not  Public.  A  minister  who  was  regularly  called 
and  settled,  was  held  not  liable  to  taxation  under  the  Penn- 
sylvania act  of  1841,  providing  for  a  two  per  cent  tax  on 
official  salaries  in  excess  of  .*200.  Tlie  minister  did  not  hold 
a  public  office.  Commonwealth  v  Cuyler,  5  Walls  &  S. 
(Pa.)  275. 

Office  Not  a  Vested  Property  Right.  A  ch-rjiyman  lias  no 
vested  property  right  in  his  office  to  exercise  the  fnnctions 
of  his  ministerial  office  to  the  end  that  he  may  earn  and 
receive  a  salary  for  liis  services.  The  right  to  receive  the 
salary  is  dependent  ujjon  the  continued  performame  of  his 
duties  as  minister;  and  if  he  becomes  disiiualilied  by  sus- 
pension or  <lej)osition  from  oHice  for  any  e((  lesiastical 
offense,  the  right  to  receive  tlic  salary  will  cease  as  the 
consequence  of  the  jiidgnHMit  against  him.     Tlic  sentence  of 


:;!ii        'I'm:  (M\  ii.  law  am*  'I'iii:  ciiriicii 

(lie  (•(•(•lcsi;isli(;il  coiii-l,  in  :i  ]»r<»|M'r'  case,  deprives  him  of 
liis  clerical  position,  and  with  i1  all  i-i<j;lit  to  future  salary 
and  einolnment.     Satlerlee  v  M.  S.,  1*0  App.  I).  (J.  'MV.i. 

Ordination.  It  is  usual  in  settling;  a  niinister,  if  he  is  ii 
novitiate,  to  ordain  him  ;  if  lie  has  been  ordained,  to  install 
him — the  condition  beinj^  previcmslv  aj^reed  uj»on.  The 
solemn  ceremonies  on  such  occasions  seem  to  indicate  that 
the  minister  is  wedded  to  the  clnncli  and  people  who  have 
chosen  him.  Other  forms  less  inip(tsin;^  mifrht,  ]>erhaps,  suf- 
fice; but  in  some  shaj)e  the  shepherd  must  contract  an  obli- 
gation to  abide  by  the  flock,  or  he  will  not  be  entitled  to  the 
rewanl.     Cliarleston  v  Allen,  tJ  \'t.  ().'>:). 

Parish,  The  plaintilf,  who  was  ordained  according  to  the 
usage  of  the  sect  to  which  he  belonged,  but  not  as  minister 
of  any  particular  church,  settled  in  the  town  of  Harmony 
and  was  received  as  pastor  of  a  church  composed  in  part  of 
inhabitants  of  that  town  and  in  part  of  inhabitants  of  other 
towns.  But  this  relation  did  not  make  him  a  minister  of  the 
town  or  parish.  That  relation  could  not  be  assumed  except 
by  the  consent  of  the  town  or  parish.  It  was  held  that  he 
was  not  the  first  settled  minister  of  the  town  of  Harmony 
under  the  provisions  of  the  statute,  and  was  not  entitled  to 
the  property  set  apart  to  ministers.  Bisbee  v  Evans,  4  Me. 
374. 

Parish,  Incumbent's  Title  to  Property.  Under  the  Massa- 
chusetts parish  system  a  donation  of  land  to  the  use  of  the 
ministry  and  of  a  parsonage  for  the  same  purpose  are  for 
ministers  in  their  official  capacity',  and  are  held  by  the  min- 
ister of  the  parish  or  corporation  for  whose  particular  bene- 
fit the  gift  or  appropriation  is  made  as  an  estate  in  fee 
simple  to  him  and  his  successors.  Brown  v  Porter,  10 
Mass.  93. 

The  minister  of  a  parish,  settled  for  life  or  for  a  term  of 
years  is  seized  of  an  estate  of  freehold  upon  condition  in  the 
ministerial  land.  He  is  answerable  for  waste  and  may  main- 
tain trespass.  The  right  of  action  being  vested  in  him  per- 
sonally, an  action  commenced  by  him  before  may  be  prose- 


MINI  STICKS  'AU7i 

cuted  to  final  judgineiit  arter  the  ministerial  relation  has 
been  dissolved.    Cargill  v  Sewall,  10  Me.  1*88. 

Pastoral  Relation.  A  minister  ought  to  be  acquainted  with 
the  people  ot  his  charge,  that  from  a  knowledge  of  their  cir- 
cumstances, liabits,  and  characters,  he  may  adapt  his  in- 
structions to  their  profit.  His  duty  it  is  to  reprove  vice,  to 
discountenance  tolly,  and  to  stem  the  torrent  of  corruption 
wherever  it  appears;  and  when,  by  a  life  of  exemplary  piety 
and  diligence,  he  is  borne  down  by  sickness  or  the  infirm- 
ities of  age,  it  is  fit  and  desirable  that  he  should  have  his 
way  smoothed  by  kind  offices,  and  a  competent  su^tport,  and 
not  be  dismissed  to  i)overty  and  neglect.  Whitney  v  First 
Ecclesiastical  Society,  Brooklyn,  5  Conn.  405. 

Pastor  Defined.  A  jiastor  is  one  who  has  been  installed 
according  to  the  usage  of  some  Christian  denomination  in 
charge  of  the  specific  church  or  body  of  churches.  First 
Presbyterian  Church  of  I'erry  v  Myers,  5  Okl.  SOU. 

The  term  "pastor"  is  correlative  to  flock  and  is  an  expres- 
sive metaphor.  The  flock  is  composed  of  all  whom  it  is  the 
ministei's  duty  to  instruct  and  reprove.  And  these  are  the 
inhabitants  of  the  parish;  they  compose  the  flock,  of  which 
the  minister  is  the  pastor.  Burr  v  First  Tarisli  in  S;nid- 
wich,  9  Mass.  Re.  270. 

Pastors'  Opinions.  The  individual  opinions  of  the  ])astors 
placed  in  authority  and  chai'ge  over  the  various  churches 
of  the  deuominations  respectively  should  be  the  pi-o])er 
subject  of  ecclesiastical  control  and  discipline,  to  be  treated 
of  and  regulated  by  the  various  authoi'it.-itive  church  bodies 
and  jurisdictions  to  which  each  respectively  belongs.  l'"'irst 
Presbyterian  Church  of  Perry  v  Myers,  5  Okl.  .SO!'. 

Presbyterian  Rule.  The  .selection  of  a  pastor  is  primarily 
in  the  congregation,  but  must  be  approved  by  the  presbytery 
and  accepted  by  the  minister  selected;  and  its  trustees  are 
not  vested  with  nuy  jwwer  ex  officio  to  employ  ministers  or 
to  contract  as  to  salai'ies.  This  jiower  ni.iy  ho  exenised  by 
them  onlj'  when  authorized  l»y  tliicct  vole  of  the  < ongrega- 
tion,  composed  of  those  who  ;iic  ;iiilliori/.ci|  hy  the  l;i\vs  of 


:!!m;  Tin:  (MNII.   LAW   AND  'I'lli:  CIK'KCH 

llic  cliin'ch  l<>  jKii  I  i(i[»;ilt^  in  siicli  iiicclings.  But  a  Kta(«,'(l 
supply  is  not  a  pastor.  His  selection  is  made  by  the  presby- 
tery. He  niny  be  comniissioncd  as  a  missionary  by  the  mis- 
sion bojird,  and  his  compciisalion  fixed  in  wliole  or  iu  part 
by  the  board.  Stated  supplies  are  under  the  charge  and 
control  of  tlie  presbytery  in  whose  jurisdiction  they  work, 
and  liave  only  such  rights  and  prerogatives  as  niay  be  ex- 
pressly conferred  on  them  by  the  I'resbytery.  Myers  v  First 
I'resbyterian  Church,  11  Okl.  544. 

Priest's  Profession  His  Property.  A  man's  profession  is  his 
property.  The  profession  of  a  priest  is  his  property,  and  a 
prohibition  of  the  exercise  of  that  profession  by  his  bishop, 
without  accusation  or  hearing,  is  contrary  to  the  law  of  tlie 
land.  The  right  of  a  priest  to  the  revenues  of  his  church 
derived  from  pew  rents  and  voluntary  offerings,  though  un- 
certain in  amount,  and  there  is  no  si)ecified  salary,  is  a  right 
of  property  which  the  law  will  recognize.  O'Hara  v  Stack, 
90  I»a.  St.  477;  see  98  Ta.  213,  where  this  case  is  explained. 

Protestant.  The  term  "Protestant  ministers"  means  those 
who  profess  Trinitarian  doctrines.  Attorney-General  v 
Drunimond,  3  Dr.  &  War.  (Eng.)  1G2. 

Public  Duty.  In  North  Carolina  it  was  held  that  ministers 
of  the  gospel  residing  in  an  incorporated  town  are  not  ex- 
empt from  performing  the  duty  of  patrol,  when  required  to 
do  so  by  the  proper  authorities,  according  to  the  corporation 
ordinances.  There  was  no  statutory  exemption  from  this 
service,  and  the  objection  that  it  was  inconsistent  with  the 
minister's  duties  to  his  church  was  overruled,  there  being 
no  evidence  to  show  how  the  police  service  would  interfere 
with  his  ministerial  duties.  Corporation  of  Elizabeth  City 
V  Kenedy,  Bush  (N.  C.  Law)  89. 

Regularity  of  Appointment.  Two  men  were  appointed  as 
pastors  of  the  same  church  by  rival  bodies,  each  claiming  to 
be  the  regular  Annual  Conference  of  the  Evangelical  Associa- 
tion. The  title  to  the  office  was  held  to  depend  on  the  ques- 
tion as  to  which  of  the  two  bodies  claiming  to  be  the  Annual 
Conference  was  in  fact  the  lawful  and  regular  Annual  Con- 


MINISTERS  397 

fereiice,  and  the  (lecision  of  this  (luestioii  was  held  to  depend 
on  the  action  taken  by  the  (ieneral  Conference.  Sehweilier 
V  Husser,  140  111.  :;!)!). 

Relation  to  Church.  A  minister  has  no  partic-nlar  relation 
to  his  church  (Congre;;ationalj  but  as  a  niend)er  of  it,  and 
his  right  to  administer  the  ordinances  he  claims  from  his 
ordination,  which  riglit  may  remain  after  his  dismission 
from  the  church.  Burr  v  First  Parish  in  Saudwich,  !)  Mass. 
Ke.  270. 

Relation  to  Society.  In  the  Methodist  Ei)iscopal  Church 
the  relation  between  a  minister  appointed  to  a  parrnular 
charge  and  the  society  to  which  he  is  appointed  is  noi  tlial 
of  master  and  servant.  He  was  not  hired  by  the  local  cor- 
poration, and  having  been  appointed  according  to  the  rules 
of  the  general  church,  there  was  no  contractual  relation  be- 
tween him  and  the  local  society.  While  the  church  couM 
not  itself,  through  its  own  officers,  exercise  power  over  iis 
ministers,  it  was  not  without  the  means  of  relief  from  his 
ministrations  when,  for  sufficient  cause,  they  should  become 
otherwise  than  religiously  lit  for  or  satisfactory  to  the  con- 
gregation.    Bristor  v  Burr.  120  X.  Y.  -127. 

Reinstatement,  Not  Proper  Remedy.  It  is  settled  that  mau- 
damus  will  not  lie  to  icsjore  a  minister  to  his  clerical  rights 
and  functions,  where  he  has  been  wrongfully  excluded  there- 
from by  the  trustees  and  congregation  of  the  church,  if  he 
has  no  temporal  right  in  such  office,  and  no  fees  or  emolu- 
ments are  thereto  attached.  Mandamus  lies  foi-  tlu'  enforce- 
ment of  legal  rights  only,  and  not  for  those  of  a  mere  spir- 
itual or  ecclesiastical  nature.  Man<lanius  is  a  legal  rem('<ly 
for  the  enforcement  of  a  legal  right.  (Mting  Uni(Mi  ("Im.  etc., 
v  Sanders,  1  ITouston  (Del.)  100.  State  ex  rel  v  Cnnmiins. 
171    Ind.  112. 

Mandamus  will  not  lie  lo  compel  the  rciiislatenu'iil  of  a 
minister  who  has  bciMi  suspended  from  his  office.  (»n  the 
ground  that  he  had  no  projtei-  notice  of  trial,  wlien-  il  ap- 
pears that  lie  hinl  achml  n(»(ice  <»r  Hie  Mine  and  phice  of 
trial,  and   was   present    willi    liis  connsel    and    p.irticip:ited 


;;!)s        'iMiio  CI  NIL  LAW  AM)  Till:  <iiri:<'ii 

tlicrtMii.  Dcnipscv  v  Xoilh  Micliif^iiii  CoiifcrtMHe,  Wcshivaii 
Molluxlist  (Nmiiectioii  of  America,  J)8  Mich.  444. 

Removal.  Tlie  civil  courts  have  no  jurisdiction  of  eccle- 
siastical <()iitroversies  involving  no  property  rij^hts.  This 
case  Involved  the  removal  of  the  jiastor  and  appointment 
of  his  successor  under  color  of  ecclesiastical  aiithority.  It 
was  held  that  the  church  tribunals  had  exclusive  aulliority. 
Travers  v  Abbey,  104  Teiin.  (Klf). 

Eight  to  Occupy  House  of  Worship.  A  vacancy  in  the  pul- 
pit occurring  during  a  recess  of  an  Annual  Conference  was 
filled  by  aj)pointment  by  the  president  of  the  Conference. 
This  appointment  was  sustained  and  the  minister  was  held 
entitled  to  be  admitted  to  the  church  edifice  for  the  purpose 
of  conducting  religious  services.  Robinson  v  Cocheu,  18 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  .^25. 

Salary,  Actions  for.    See  Actions,  Minister's  Salary. 

Salary,  Devise  for.  A  devise  in  1684  to  the  Netherland 
Dutch  Reformed  Church  in  New  York  (that  being  the  only 
society  of  that  denomination  in  New  York  at  that  time)  for 
the  support  and  maintenance  of  the  minister  of  the  church 
was  held  to  be  limited  to  that  society  only,  and  could  not 
be  used  for  the  payment  of  the  salaries  of  other  branches 
of  the  same  denomination  afterward  established.  The  devise 
was  for  the  exclusive  benefit  of  the  society  named  in  the  will. 
Attorney  General  ex  rel.  Marselus  v  Dutch  Reformed 
Church,  New  York,  30  N.  Y.  452. 

Settlement.  From  the  ancient  and  immemorial  usage  of 
Congregational  churches,  before  the  parish  settle  a  minister, 
he  preaches  with  them  as  a  candidate  for  settlement,  with 
the  intent  of  declaring  his  religious  faith,  that  his  hearers 
may  judge  whether  they  approve  his  theological  tenets; 
and  if  he  is  afterward  settled,  it  is  understood  that  the 
greater  part  of  the  parish  and  the  minister  agree  in  their 
religious  sentiments  and  opinions.  Burr  v  First  Parish  in 
Sandwich,  J)  Mass.  Re.  270. 

Statedly  Officiates,  Meaning.  A  "clergA-man  who  statedly 
officiates"  designates  one  who,  either  as  regularlv  inducted 


MINISTERS  399 

pastor  or  a.s  stated  supply,  acts  In  superior  eeclesiastical 
authority.    Trustees  v  Sturgeon,  9  l*a.  St.  321. 

Support,  Duty  of  Church.  That  it  is  the  duty  of  a  relijfious 
deuominatiou  to  provide  a  supi)ort  lor  its  teachers  is  a  fact 
that  is  recognized  with  a  few  exceptions  all  over  Christen- 
dom. It  is  said,  however,  to  be  especially  Itindiuj:;  upon  the 
Catholic  Church,  for  the  reason  that  its  priests  are  debarred 
by  its  canons,  and  by  their  ordination  vows,  from  engaging 
in  any  secular  enii»loynient,  and  that  from  this  vow  not  even 
the  bi.shop  can  absolve  them.  The  duty  of  the  church  to 
sui)port  its  priests  must  have  some  qualification.  The  right 
to  support  may  dei)end  upon  the  manner  in  which  the  jtriest 
performs  his  official  duties,  and  the  nature  of  his  walk 
and  conversation  in  life.  If  a  priest,  by  reason  of  his  equiv- 
ocal conduct,  becomes  unfitted  to  perform  his  j)riestly  func- 
tions, it  is  difficult  to  see  by  what  rule  of  ecclesiastical  or 
civil  law  he  is  entitled  to  a  salary  or  support.  Tuigg  v  Shee- 
haii,  101  l»a.  St.  :M\:\. 

Taxation,  Exemption.  A  person  elected  by  a  Methodist 
society  to  be  one  of  their  local  preachers,  and  ordained  as 
a  deacon  of  the  Methodist  lOpiscopal  Church,  is  a  minister 
of  the  gospel  within  the  Maine  act  of  1811,  exemi)ting  min- 
isters from  taxation.  It  is  sufficient  if  such  minister  be 
settled  over  any  relijiious  society,  though  it  be  composed  of 
members  resident  in  several  towns.  It  is  not  necessary  that 
such  society  be  under  any  legal  obligation  as  such  to  pay 
him  a  fixed  salary,    l^aldwin  v  McCliiicli,  1  Me.  102. 

In  Weaver  v  Deveudorf,  ;>  Deuio  (N.  Y.)  11(5,  it  was  held 
that  if  a  minister  oAvned  property  worth  more  than  f  1,500, 
an  action  would  not  lie  by  him  against  the  assessors  mak- 
ing an  assessment  to  recover  damages  on  the  ground  that 
they  had  refused  to  give  him  the  benefit  of  the  e.xemption. 
The  minister  having  proi>erty  exceeding  the  exemj)ted 
amount,  the  assessors  had  jurisdiction  to  make  an  assess- 
ment, and  it  would  be  presumed  that  they  had  made  the  «le- 
duction  required  by  law. 

A  person  ordained  as  a  Congregat ioiml  ministri'  in  Cim- 


HID  Till':  CIX  IL   LAW   AM>  Till:  (llli;*"!! 

iM'cliciil.  (lisiiiiss(Ml  ill  ri'i^iiliir  sliiiKlin;;;  :iimI  iiishillcd  ()\<*r 
;i  low  II  ill  lliis  State,  is  within  the  statute  of  1821,  chap,  107, 
sec.  (I,  exempt iiig  settled  ministers  from  taxation,  A  person 
was  settled  as  a  Coiigre<5atioiial  minister  over  a  town  with 
leave  to  dissolve  his  connection  upon  giving  six  months 
notice.  Some  of  his  parish  formed  themselves  into  a  new 
nnincorjiorated  society,  and  his  church  voted  to  unite  them- 
selves with  them.  The  new  society  gave  him  a  call  to  settle 
with  them,  which  he  accei)ted.  He  then  gave  notice  as  above 
mentioned  to  the  i)arisli,  and  after  the  six  months  expired 
he  preached  with  the  new  society  as  their  minister,  but 
without  any  new  ceremony  of  ordination  or  installation. 
Soon  after  he  so  began  to  preach  the  church  was,  by  an 
ecclesiastical  council,  formed  into  two,  without  precedence 
to  either,  one  of  which  was  united  with  the  new  society  and 
the  other  with  the  parish.  It  was  held  that  such  minister 
by  virtue  of  the  statute  of  1811,  chap.  G,  sec,  4,  and  statute 
1821.  chap.  107,  sec,  6,  was  exenii)ted  from  taxati(m  for  the 
amount  of  property  specified  in  this  last  statute.  Gridley 
V,  Clark,  2  Pick.  (Mass,)  403, 

In  Vail  V  Owen,  19  Barb.  (N.  Y. )  22,  it  was  held  that  the 
assessors  have  jurisdiction  even  if  the  minister's  property  is 
all  exempt  and  that  they  are  not  liable  in  an  action  to  re- 
cover back  the  tax  paid  by  the  minister,  overruling  Pros.ser 
V  Secor,  5  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  007. 

A  minister  in  good  standing  but  who  by  reason  of  old  age 
and  acc<)mi)anying  infirmities,  including  growing  impair- 
ment of  vision  which  resulted  in  total  blindness,  had  foi- 
fifteen  years  withdrawn  t'roiii  the  active  duties  of  his  pro- 
fession but  during  all  that  jteriod  had  jierformed  its  func- 
tions occasionally  as  opportunity  otlered.  He  was  not  en- 
gaged in  any  secular  occupation.  It  was  held  that,  being 
a  minister  and  engaged  in  no  other  calling,  he  was  en- 
titled to  the  exemption,  notwithstanding  he  was  disqual- 
ified for  active  duty  by  age  and  infirmity.  People  v  Peter- 
son, 31  Hun  (N.  Y.)  421. 

The  estate   of  an    ordained   minister   of    the   gospel    not. 


MIXISTKKS  401 

settled  over  a  cor])orate  society  is  not  exoiiijd  from  taxation. 
Kidder  v  French,  Smith  N.  H.  15."). 

In  Massachusetts  an  ordained  minister  not  settled  in  any 
particuhir  parish  is  not  exempted  from  taxation  under  the 
act  of  ISll,  dutp.  ().  Kugj»;les  v  Kindjall,  1-  Mass.  '.Vol.  See 
also  article  on  Taxation,  subtitle  Minister. 

Tenure.  The  settlement  of  a  minister  over  a  Congrega- 
tional church  and  society,  witiiout  any  limitations  as  to  its 
coutinuance  or  any  express  stipulations  as  to  the  mode  of 
its  dissolution,  is  a  contract  for  lif(\  determinahle  only  in 
the  uianner  and  for  the  causes  established  hy  law .  Sheldon 
V  Cougregational  I'arish,  Easton,  24  Pick.  iMass.j  281. 

A  minister  settled  in  a  i)arish  for  an  indelinite  term  does 
not  hold  his  oflice  at  the  will  of  the  parish.  Avery  v  Tyring- 
liam,  3  Mass.  IGl. 

Where  an  ecclesiastical  society  voted  to  call  the  idaintilV, 
who  was  then  a  i)reacher  of  the  gospel  and  a  candidate  for 
settlement,  to  settle  with  llicui  in  the  anoiU  of  the  gospel 
ministr3%  and  to  ])ay  the  sum  of  sixty-live  i)ouiids  annually 
as  a  salar}',  and  the  sum  of  three  hundred  poumls  as  a  settle- 
ment, payable  in  Ihice  annual  installments,  tin*  plaiiitilf 
accepted  the  call,  and  agreed  to  settle  with  such  soiicly 
on  the  terms  proposed,  and  in  February,  175(>,  he  was  duly 
ordained  and  set  apart  to  the  work  of  the  gospel  minisiiy  as 
pastor  of  sudi  society  and  of  the  church  therein  ;  it  was  held 
that  the  pastoral  otlice,  with  which  the  i»lainlilV  thus  became 
vested,  was  an  office  not  determinable  al  the  will  (»f  eilliei- 
party  but  for  the  life  of  the  incumbent.  ^^'Ilinley  v  I'irst 
Ecclesiastical  Society,  Brooklyn,  5  Omn.   I(ir>. 

In  Arthur  v  Norfield  Congregational  (Muutli.  7:'.  Conn. 
71S,  it  was  held  that  the  original  contract  between  the  par- 
ties constilute(l  a  settlement  for  the  tei-m  of  the  minister's 
life,  subject  to  the  i)rovision  lor  terminating  tin'  itasloral 
relation  on  three  m()nths  notice,  and  also  to  any  i-iglii  w  hit  li 
the  church  might  have  of  terminating  it  Un-  cause,  in  con 
formity  to  the  rules  and  usages  of  the  Congregational  de- 
nomination   of   Christians.    A    snb.se(|neiit    arrangemenl    by 


1(12  Till-:  ('I\II.  I. AW  AM)  Tin:  Cllllfril 

wliicli   tlur  jiiistor  was  eiiiploycMl    for  one  year   was  <1('('iim'(| 
a  iiiodification  of  the  original  settlement. 

Terminating  Relation.  Considering  a  clinrcli,  gafliered  in 
a  r^'ligious  society  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used,  and  in 
which  alone  it  can  be  used,  in  lliis  nlntion,  it  seeinH  to  fol- 
low eonclnsively  tliat  when  a  minister  ceases  to  be  the 
teacher  of  piety,  reli^ioti,  and  morality  in  snch  society  he 
ceases  to  be  the  pastor  of  such  c  Imrch.  Stebbins  v  Jennings, 
10  Pick.  (Mass.)  171. 


MISSIONS 

Mission  defined,  403. 

Missionary  defined,  403. 

Bequest,  uncertain,  404. 

Legatee  not  capable  of  taking  bequest,  404. 

Taxation  of  bequest,  exemption,  404. 

Testator's  intention,  405. 


Mission  Defined.  "The  word  'mission'  is  well  iiiulerstoo«l 
ill  coinmou  language.  For  more  than  forty  years  the  ditt'er- 
eiit  American  churches  have  been  engaged  in  establishing 
and  maintaining  missions  in  various  parts  of  the  heathen 
world.  Hardly  a  religious  denomination  exists  which  is 
not  employed  in  one  or  more  of  such  benevolent  enterprises. 
The  purpose  is  to  civilize,  Christianize,  and  educate  the 
natives  of  those  countries  where  the  missions  are  estab- 
lished. This  is  accomiilished  by  preaching,  by  oral  instruc- 
tion, and  by  schools."  ''The  whole  machinery  of  the  work 
at  a  selected  spot  in  a  foreign  laud  is  called  a  mission.  It 
is,  in  fine,  a  Christian  school."  A  legacy  to  a  mission  is 
sutticieiitly  definite.  Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary  So- 
ciety's Appeal,  :\0  \\i.  St.  425. 

Missionary  Defined.  The  word  "missionary,"  whether  as 
a  nonn  or  adjective,  I'lnbraces  ii(»t  only  the  conci'ption  of  a 
religious,  charitalile,  or  educational  work  or  worker,  but 
also  of  such  a  work  done  through  jdiilanthroidc  motives,  for 
the  welfare  of  others  too  poor,  too  unappre<  iative,  or  too 
inditferent  to  do  it  them.selves,  and  by  persons  sujiported  or 
means  furnished  in  jiart  at  least  by  some  agency  of  which 
those  for  whom  the  work  is  done  do  not  form  a  sustaining 
part.  The  derivation  of  the  word  implies  a  sending,  and  so 
it  is  that  in  both  technital  and  common  speech  the  idea  of  a 
sending  forth,  and  sending  forth  to  the  service  of  others,  the 

403 


101        Tin:  ('IN  iL  LAW  A.\i>  Till:  ('iiri{cn 

<!(>in;i  ol"  ;i  work  lor  ollin-s,  is  iissocinlctl   witli   its  tiiciinin^. 
Jiulkclcy   V    Woidiiii^lon    lOcclcsijislical    Society,   78   Conn. 

Bequest,  Uncertain.  A  iMMpiest  'Mo  IIm>  piopjij^wlion  of  the 
gospel  in  forcij^n  lands"  was  held  void  loi-  uncertainty. 
Carpenter  v  Miller.  :;  W.  \'a.  174. 

A  bequest  of  a  fund  in  be  ajtidicd  to  foreiffii  missions  and 
to  tlie  poor  saints,  to  be  dis]»oscd  of  as  the  executor  may 
think  the  proper  objects  according  to  the  Scriptures,  the 
greater  part,  however,  to  be  ap])lied  to  missionary  purposes, 
^^  illi  a  further  residuai-y  ])rovision  for  home  missions,  was 
held  too  indetinite  and  therefore  void.  A  be(piest  for  reli- 
gious charity  must  be  to  some  definite  purpose,  and  to  some 
bodj^  or  association  or  persons  having  a  legal  existence,  and 
with  capacity  to  take.  Or  it  must  be  to  some  such  body  on 
which  the  Legislature  shall,  within  a  reasonable  time,  con- 
fer a  capacity  to  take.  The  kind  of  foreign  missionaries  or 
home  missions  is  not  specified,  and  the  poor  saints  are  not 
defined.  The  provision  in  the  will  lacked  defiuiteness  of 
description,  and  was  therefore  held  incapable  of  execution. 
Bridges  v  Pleasants,  4  Iredell's  Kq.  (  N.  C. )  2(). 

Legatee  Not  Capable  of  Taking  Bequest.  A  bequest  to  the 
Diocesan  Missionary  Societies  of  Maryland  and  Virginia 
was  held  void  as  to  Maryland  for  the  reason  that  there  was 
at  the  time  no  incorporated  missionary  society  capable  of 
taking  the  bequest,  but  it  was  held  valid  as  to  Virginia,  there 
being  in  that  State  an  incorporated  missionary  society. 
Brown  v  Thompkins,  49  Md.  423. 

Taxation  of  Bequest,  Exemption.  Certain  ])roperty  in  Eng- 
land was  conveyed  to  trustees  in  trust  to  apply  the  income 
for  the  jmrjjose  of  promoting  and  supporting  missions  to 
heathen  nations,  of  maintaining  and  educating  cliildren  of 
ministers  and  of  missionaries,  maintaining  and  snpi)orting 
certain  establishments  for  single  persons  and  widows  belong- 
ing to  the  Moravian  brotherhood.  It  was  held  that  the 
income  so  applied  came  within  the  exemption  in  favor  of 
charitable  purposes  in  the  income  tax  act  of  1842,  sec.  61. 


MISSIONS  105 

Income  Tax  Commissiouers  v  i'emsel,  01  L.  J.  Q.  B.  (N.  S.  i 
205. 

Testator's  Intention.  A  devise  of  a  portion  of  the  estate  to 
"tlic  missionary  society  of  Foreign  Missions"  was  held  not 
void  for  uncertainty.  Tliere  was  no  such  society,  but  the 
court  held  that  it  was  competent  to  show  by  extrinsic  evi- 
dence that  another  society  answered  to  the  description  <»f 
the  society  named,  and  that  the  devise  was  intended  for  tlie 
benefit  of  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for  Forei'i:n 
Missions.    Brewster  v  McCalTs  Ex'rs.,  15  Conn.  274. 

A  bequest  to  tlie  Foreign  Missionary  Society  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  was  held  to  be  intended  for  the 
Missionary  Society  of  the  Methodist  Ei)iscoj)al  Church, 
there  being  no  society  bearing  the  first  name,  and  the  latter 
having  charge  of  the  foreign  missionary  work  of  the  church. 
Re  Bryson's  Estate,  7  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  024. 


MORMONS 

Church,  disincorporation,  effect,  406. 

Creed,  judicial  notice,  400. 

Incorporation,  407. 

Independence,  IMissouii;  Church  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  409. 

Jehovah  Presbytery  of  Zion;  Preparation,  Iowa,  411. 

Marriage,  divorce,  411. 

Marriage,  412. 

Name  and  succession,  413. 

Church,  Disincorporation,  Effect.  In  U.  S.  v  Church,  S 
lUah  ;'>10,  it  wiis  s.iid  that  the  ])ersonal  iji-operty  of  the  dis- 
iiicorpoi'ated  Mormon  Church  wa.s  devoted  hy  the  donors  to 
general  church  purposes,  one  of  which  was  the  propagation 
and  encouragement  of  the  practice  of  polygamy,  others  of 
which  were  legal,  such  as  the  relief  of  the  poor  and  the 
bnilding  and  repair  of  houses  of  worship.  When  the  church 
was  disincor])orated  its  real  estate  was  escheated  to  the 
United  States,  but  no  dispo.sition  was  made  of  its  personal 
lu'operty,  which  was  left  without  an  owner;  held  that  such 
property  should  be  vested  in  a  trustee  to  be  used  for  church 
l)urposes  which  were  legal,  such  as  the  relief  of  the  poor  and 
the  building  and  rei)air  of  hou.ses  of  worship:  Zane,  C.  J. 
dissenting  on  the  ground  that  the  church  having  ceased  the 
encouragement  of  polygamy,  the  property  should  be  vested 
in  the  first  presidencj'  of  the  church,  w^ho  were  desigiuited 
l)v  the  church  generally  to  hold  ])roperty  for  the  church,  to 
be  used  for  churcli  purposes  which  they  selected  as  the  relief 
of  the  i)oor  and  the  building  and  repair  of  houses  of  worship. 

Creed,  Judicial  Notice.  Courts  will  take  judicial  notice  of 
matters  of  history,  of  the  contents  of  the  Bible,  of  the  fact 
that  there  are  various  religious  sects,  of  the  creed  and  gen- 
eral doctrine  of  each  sect,  and  hence  will  take  notice  of  the 
creed  and  general  doctrine  of  the  Mormon  Church,  and  of 

406 


MUILMONS  407 

the  principle  of  telestial  marriage  i)eculiar  to  tlu'  ^loniion 
sect.    Hilton  v  Koylaiice,  25  Utah  IL'I). 

Incorporation.  The  Church  of  J^atter  Hay  Saints  was  in- 
corporated in  1851,  under  an  act  of  Assenibly  of  the  provis- 
ional j^overnnient  wliich  they  set  ujt  in  Ttah  nndcr  the 
name  of  the  State  of  Deseret.  The  jireliniinary  act  of  Con- 
gress erecting  the  Terriloi-y  of  I'tah  was  jtassed  in  1S5(),  hut 
the  territorial  government  was  not  organized  until  after  tlie 
passage  of  the  church  charter.  The  territorial  Legislat\iic 
adopted  a  resolution  October  4,  1S51,  confirming  the  clnircli 
charter.  The  charter  was  also  reenacted  by  the  territorial 
act  passed  in  1855,  included  in  a  revision  of  the  statutes. 

In  18(12  Congress  juissed  an  act  pi'oliibiting  polygamy  in 
the  tei'ritories  and  disapproving  and  annulling  the  heserel 
charter  and  also  the  confirmatory  acts  passed  by  tlie  I'lali 
territorial  legislattire.  Additional  [)roliibitory  legislation 
concei-ning  polygamy  was  enacted  by  Congress  in  1SS2  and 
1887.  Proceedings  were  instituted  on  belialf  of  the  Cnited 
States  for  the  dissolution  of  the  Mormon  Church  c<u-pora 
tion,  and  sequestration  of  its  juoperty  except  that  situated 
in  Salt  Lake  City  used  exclusively  l(»r  jmblic  worsliij).  l>y 
the  act  of  Congress  jtassed  in  1SS7  tlie  charter  was  dissolved, 
and  the  acts  creating  and  confirming  the  corporation  were 
repealed. 

It  was  hehl  that  Congress  had  power  to  rejK'al  the  Mormon 
Cliuich  charter;  tliat  the  corporation  existed  under  a  so- 
called  ordinance  of  the  State  of  Deseret.  This  oidimince 
had  no  validity  excejtt  in  the  voluntary  acciniescence  of  the 
peojde  of  Utah  then  i-esiding  lliei-e.  Deseret.  or  Ctah.  had 
ceased  to  belong  to  the  Mexican  governinenl  by  the  treaty 
of  Cuadalui)e  Hidalgo,  aiul  in  1S.~)1  it  belonged  to  the  Inited 
States,  and  no  government  wiih(»ut  authority  from  the 
United  States,  express  (»r  implied,  had  any  legal  right  to 
exist  there.  The  Assendily  of  Deseret  had  no  power  to  luaUe 
any  valid  law.  Congress  had  already  (  lS."»Oi  passed  the  law 
for  organizing  the  Territoiy  of  liah  into  a  goveruineut, 
and   no  other  govenuueiil    was  lawful   within   the  bounds  of 


KKS  Till;  ("l\  IL   LAW   AM)  Tin:  (III   K<ll 

(hat  Tcri'ildiv.  iJnt  tlic  cliiirlcr  cvoii  if  iiivali*!  iiiHlcr  llu; 
Dosercl  oidiiiaiicc.  hccaiiKi  a  lej^al  corporation  by  the  terri- 
toi-ial  (((iiliriiiatory  ads  of  lsr)l  and  1X55.  The  cliartci'  was 
ic'itcakMl  and  the  cori)oratioii  dissolved  by  the  act  of  Coii- 
jj[ress  of  1  .SS7. 

The  court  also  held  that  upon  the  dissolution  of  the  cor- 
poration, which  was  orj;anized  for  relijjjious  and  charitabh* 
jMirposes,  its  jiersonal  pro])erty  became  subject  to  disposal 
by  tlie  sovereign  jiower.  while  its  real  estate  escheated  or 
reverted  to  the  original  grantor  or  donor,  except  as  subject 
to  a  charitable  use.  In  this  case  it  was  said  that  the  grantor 
of  all  or  the  principal  pai't  of  the  real  estate  of  the  Monnf)n 
Church,  was  really  the  United  States,  from  whom  the  prop- 
erty was  derived  by  the  church,  or  its  trustees,  through  the 
operation  of  the  townsite  act.  By  the  act  of  1S(i2  property 
so  accpiired  by  the  Mormon  Church  was  declared  forfeited 
to  the  United  States,  saving  existing  vested  rights. 

It  was  hebl  that  under  the  circumstances  the  real  prop- 
erty held  by  the  Mormon  Church  was  forfeited  to  the  United 
States,  and  any  trust  estate  created  by  the  corporation  in 
the  hands  of  the  trustees,  devolved  to  the  United  States  the 
same  as  if  the  property  had  been  held  by  the  corporation 
itself.  The  trustee  became  trustee  for  the  United  States 
instead  of  trustee  for  the  corjjoration.  The  property  of  the 
corporation  was  held  for  religious  and  charitable  purposes, 
esj)ecially  for  the  inculcation  and  si)read  of  the  doctrines 
and  usages  of  the  Mormon  Church,  one  of  the  distijiguishing 
features  of  which  is  the  practice  of  ])olygamy.  The  system 
of  common  law  and  equity  prevailing  generally  in  the  United 
States  was  said  to  have  been  in  force  in  Utah  by  o])eration 
of  every  territorial  statute.  The  law  of  charities  was  also 
in  force  in  Utah.  The  proceeds  of  the  property  were  to  be 
devoted  to  common  schools  in  the  Territory.  The  right  of 
the  government  to  sequestrate  the  property  and  place  it  in 
the  hands  of  a  receiver,  subject  to  final  disposition  according 
to  the  rights  of  all  ]iai*ties,  was  declared  as  a  fundamental 
principle  of  government   in    relation    to   corporations   and 


MORMONS  10!) 

property  iu  territories.  Tlic  l-alc  Corpoi-ation  ol'  the  ('Imreli 
of  Jesus  Cbrist  of  J.attcr  1  >:iy  Saints  v  United  States,  VHi 
U.  S.  I  ;  see  also  I  !(►  T.  S.  (iti."). 

Independence,  Missouri;  Church  of  Latter  Day  Saints.  Tlie 
property  iu  (piestion  was  oiii^inallv  acciniicd  Itv  an  anient  of 
this  ehurch,  for  the  imi-jtose  of  ei-ecting  Ihi'icon  a  teniph-, 
designed  to  be  the  New  .lerusalein  of  this  religious  order, 
from  which  the  eyes  and  yearning  desires  of  this  people, 
through  sixty  years  of  exile  and  wandering,  have  never  been 
turned  nor  diverted.  To  them  it  has  been  as  the  New  .Ier»i- 
salem  to  the  Israelite  and  as  Mecca  to  the  Moslem.  V*>v 
sixty-two  years  it  has  been  known  to  this  sect,  and  the 
people  of  Western  Missouri  as  tlie  "Temple  Lot"  on  which 
in  the  fullness  of  time,  and  the  fnltillment  of  the  prophecy, 
was  to  be  erected  a  sjileiidid  temple  for  the  gathei-ing  of  tlie 
believers  for  religious  worship  and  exaltation. 

Edward  Partridge  bought  this  land  with  funds  contri- 
buted by  the  members  of  the  church,  and  held  the  title  in 
recognition  of  the  trust.  Its  accpiisitiou  by  him  was  in 
fulfillment  of  the  revealed  will  of  God,  as  accepted  by  him, 
as  a  member  of  the  ehurch,  in  the  liook  of  Doctrine  and 
Covenants.  He  was  a  bislutp  of  the  Central  (Miurch,  then 
at  Kirtland,  Ohio.  As  such  he  lo«)ked  after  its  tenipmalilies. 
The  stress  of  this  religious  sect's  environments  rendered  it 
expedient  that  they  should  .seek  asylum  in  the  then  remote 
West,  where,  as  thej^  suj)pose(l.  unvexed  by  those  who 
desjiitefully  used  them,  they  might  tabei-nacle  in  peace. 
Bishop  Tartridge  received  *o,0U0  raised  by  c(uiliibution, 
and  went  to  Independence,  Missouii,  to  acciuiic  lands  for 
the  temi»le  and  a  settlement  of  the  people  of  his  religion, 
and  until  his  death  iu  1841  he  an<l  his  church  re«ogni/.cd  tin' 
lot  as  church  j)r()i)erty.  Joseph  Smith,  the  founder  and 
head  of  the  chui'ch,  its  recognized  ]»roi)het  and  seei-,  himseli 
came  to  Missouri,  and  in  IS.'!!'  held  icligious  services  on  this 
site  and  solemnly  dedicated  it  as  the  spot  where  the  temple 
was  to  rise  and  shim'. 

Bishop  Partridge  participated   in   this  ceremony,  and  on 


110        tin:  cinii,  i,a\\'  and  tiii:  cm  !{("n 

(he  eve  ol'  the  exiMiIsioii  ol  iiimseir  mid  the  ]»eoj)l<'  of  his 
church  from  the  State  by  military  tone  at  the  command  of 
Ihe  governor  in  18.'50,  made  a  d(MMl  einhracing  this  property 
to  tlie  minor  cliildren  of  Oliver  Cowdery,  his  coworker  in  tlie 
church,  and  companion  in  miHfortune,  in  which  lie  recited 
the  fact  "that  there  was  money  paid  in  my  hands  by  Oliver 
Cowdery,  an  eldei-  in  the  chnrch  of  the  Latter  Day  Saints. 
formerly  of  Kirtland,  Ohio,  for  the  purpose  of  entering 
lands  in  the  State  of  Missouri,  in  the  name  and  for  the 
benetit  of  said  church.''  This  deed  was  assailed  on  various 
grounds,  including  the  allegation  that  it  was  never  deliv- 
ered. It  was  recorded,  and  the  delivery  was  ]»resunied  to 
have  been  made  at  the  time  of  recording  or  pri<jr  tiiereto. 
It  seems  that  the  Cowdery  children,  trustees  of  the  proi)ert3' 
in  the  Partridge  deed,  died  during  their  minority.  The  deed 
was  deemed  valid.    It  included  the  Temple  Lot. 

In  an  action  involving  the  title  to  the  Temple  Lot  brought 
by  the  Reorganized  Church  of  Latter  Day  Saints  of  Jesus 
Christ  against  the  Church  of  Christ,  to  declare  a  trust  as 
to  certain  real  estate  in  favor  of  the  complainant,  the  de- 
fendant claimed  title  to  the  i)roperty  partly  under  a  deed 
from  some  of  the  heirs  of  Bishop  I'artridge,  and  partly  by 
adverse  possession.  It  was  held  that  the  claim  of  the  de- 
fendants was  not  well  founded  because  the  deed  was  invalid, 
not  having  been  properly  executed,  and  being  also  without 
consideration,  and  also  because  the  claim  of  adverse  pos- 
session was  not  sufficiently  established.  The  comjdainant. 
the  Reorganized  Church  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  was  held 
entitled  to  judgment  declaring  its  right  to  the  property,  and 
removing  a  cloud  on  the  title  constituted  by  the  claim  of 
the  defendants.  The  court  said  that  if  the  church,  while 
located  at  Nauvoo,  had  asserted  the  right  of  control  over 
Temple  Lot  in  Independence  up  to  1845,  its  claim  would 
have  been  recognized  by  the  ecclesiastical  body  and  by 
courts  of  chancery  as  the  beneficiary  of  the  trust  in  the 
Partridge  deed.  The  court  suggested  that  the  Salt  Lake 
Church  was  using  its  intluence  in  behalf  of  the  defendants 


MOKMOXS  1 1 1 

(respondeuts)  in  this  suit.  Reorganiz«'<l  (Mmiuli  ul  .Icsiis 
Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints  v  Church  of  Chiist,  (id  Im-iI. 
Rep.  y:57. 

Jehovah  Presbytery  of  Zion;  Preparation,  Iowa.  Tliis  society 
was  founded  by  Charles  B.  Thonii)son,  who  with  certain 
followers  established  a  colony  at  l'rei)aration  about  IS;")  on 
land  which  was  then  vacant  but  which  was  taken  up  by  the 
settlers.  Thompson  established  schools  of  faith  and  works, 
and  claimed  to  receive  revelations.  The  settlers  were  re- 
quired to  transfer  tlieir  pi'oi)erty  to  Thompson,  "chief  stew- 
ard of  the  House  of  Jehovah,''  and  chief  teacher  of  the  Order 
of  Elias  the  proi)]iet,  in  Jehovah's  Presbytery  of  Zion.  Mem- 
bers of  the  society  were  not  only  recpiired  to  transfer  liieir 
projjert}'  to  Tliompson  but  to  agree  to  work  for  him  and 
under  his  direction  two  years,  receiving  therefor  their 
board,  lodging,  and  clothing,  without  other  remuneration. 
This  was  done  to  fulfill  an  alleged  law  of  sacrilice  which 
had  been  specially  revealed  to  Thomjjsoii.  In  1858  a  dith- 
culty  arose  between  Tlnnnpson  and  other  members  of  the 
society  growing  out  of  his  refusal  to  divide  the  property 
and  settle  with  the  mend)ers,  and  Thompson  left  the  com- 
munity. Thompson  afterward  transferred  to  relatives  and 
another  person  property  which  had  been  obtained  by 
transfer  from  other  members  of  that  society.  Plain! ilV 
brought  an  action  to  recover  the  property  transferied  by 
him,  and  it  api>eared  that  such  transfer  was  without  con- 
sideration, other  than  the  jtromises  ma<l(>  by  Thomjtson. 
The  court  decided  that  Thomjtson  was  trustee  for  the  mem- 
bers of  the  society  and  held  ;ill  tlic  pritprrly  received  by  him 
as  teacher,  leader,  and  agent  <»l  ilic  society,  in  trust  f«»r  the 
use  and  benetit  of  the  mendnM-s  of  tlie  society,  and  deci-eed 
the  cancellation  of  conveyances  by  Tliomjtson  as  above  men- 
tioned. Also  that  the  estate  should  be  closed.  ;i  receiver 
a])])ointed,  and  a  disti-ibution  made  acconling  to  the  rights 
and  ('(piities  of  the  niendiers  of  llie  society.  Scott  v  Tlioniji 
son.  21    la.  f)!)!). 

Marriage,    Divorce.     I'nder  a  tenet  ot  the  Mormon  Cliui'h 


Ml'        tin;  (M\ii.  i>.\\v  am>  tin:  (•iiiikii 

:i  iiinii  :iii(l  woiiiiiii  nii^lil  Ix'  snilol  so  lli;il  llicy  uoiiM  Im- 
liusband  :iii<l  wilV  jillcr  (NmIIi  (lli;it  is,  in  ch'riiit  \  i .  Two 
persons  wciil  lliroiij^Ii  (liis  ccrcnioiiy,  not  in  the  i»erfoi-ni;in((! 
of  ii  ni;in'iii<i;e  contract  bnt  according  to  the  tenet  only, 
'{'he  cei-einony  was  performed  wlien  tlie  woman  was  snppose*) 
to  be  in  Iier  last  illness.  Fpon  her  unexpected  recovery  the 
parties  ajjreed  to  <lissolve  the  supposed  maiital  relation 
hetween  them,  and  they  thereafter  lived  sepai'ate  and  apart. 
Afterwai'd  a  formal  divorce  si<;ned  Ity  the  i>arties  was  exe- 
cuted in  the  manner  prescribe<l  by  the  Mormon  Church, 
and  the  marriajic  was  deemed  diss()lve<l.  Thereafter  tlie 
wife  married  again,  according  to  the  Mormon  forms.  The 
husband  did  not  remarry.  After  the  death  of  the  husband 
the  wife  married  to  him  as  above  described  brought  an 
action  for  dower  in  his  estate.  It  was  held  that  the  marriage 
ceremony  performed  in  this  case  made  the  parties  husban«l 
and  wife  for  time  as  well  as  for  eternity.  The  so-called 
church  divorce  was  null  and  void.  The  power  to  dissolve  a 
marriage  contract  was  not  pos.sessed  by  the  church,  but  was 
a  function  of  the  State.  The  wife  was  held  entitled  to 
dower.    Hilton  v  Roylance,  25  Utah  120. 

Marriage.  The  sealing  ordinance  of  the  Mormon  Church, 
founded  on  the  Revelation  on  the  Eternity  of  the  Marriage 
Covenant,  contained  in  the  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Covenants 
of  the  Mormon  Church,  section  132,  as  indicated  by  the  doc- 
trine in  relation  thereto,  contained  in  such  book,  and  as 
interpreted  and  practiced  bj'  the  Mormon  })eo])le  so  far  as 
the  history,  records,  and  journals  of  such  church  show,  is  a 
marriage  ceremony  contemplating  marriage  for  time  and 
eternity,  and  not  for  either  time  or  eternity  alone.  The 
sealing  ceremony-  of  the  Mormon  Church,  whereby  the  con- 
tracting ])arties  agree  and  are  declared  by  a  duly  authorized 
church  otlicial  to  be  married  for  time  and  etei'uity,  creates 
a  valid  common  law  marriage  between  parties  believing  and 
in  good  faith  ])articipating  therein ;  the  j^art  of  such  cere- 
mony referring  to  eternity  being  mere  surplusage.  Hilton 
V  Roylance,  25  Utah  129. 


MOKiMON8  4i:{ 

Name  and  Succession.  The  idcniitv,  niiiiy,  ;iii<l  sanicMcss 
fioiii  hSIO  to  1844  of  the  Moriiioii  (IiuitIi  are  too  clear  for 
doubt.  >.'ow  and  then,  by  thi«  and  that  person,  it  was  called 
"The  Church  of  Christ,"  "Church  of  Latter  Day  Saints." 
The  terms  were  employed  interchaM<,^('ably.  The  temple 
built  at  Kirtland,  Ohio,  the  central  rendezvous  between  is.'.O 
and  1835,  was  inscribed  on  the  portal  with  the  words  "Thr 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints."  Tiiis  was 
the  public  authoritative  recognition  of  the  name  by  whit  li 
they  chose  to  be  known. 

If  human  testimony  is  to  place  any  matter  foi-evei-  at 
rest,  this  church  was  one  in  doctrine,  government,  and  pur- 
pose from  1830  to  June  1844,  when  Joseph  Smith,  its 
founder,  was  killed.  It  had  the  same  fedrral  head,  govern- 
ing bodies,  and  faith.  During  this  jjeriod  there  was  no 
schism,  no  sece.ssion,  no  parting  of  the  ways  in  any  niaiirr 
fundamental  or  affecting  its  oneness.  The  only  authorized 
and  recognized  books  of  doctrine  ami  laws  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church  from  1S:50  to  ISKi  were  the  Bible,  tin- 
Book  of  Mormon,  and  the  Book  of  Docti-ine  and  Covenants. 
The  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants,  which  consisted  prin 
cipally  of  claimed  divine  revelations  to  .Joseph  Smiih,  was 
the  edition  published  at  Kirllaml.  Oliid.  in  \s:\~>  and  at 
Nauvoo  in  1845. 

Jo.seph  Smith  was  killed  a  I  Cartilage,  lllin<»is.  in  .lime. 
1844.  He  was  the  ju-esident  and  the  inspiring  spiiit  of  the 
church.  His  violent  death  strmk  with  dismay  the  liearls  of 
his  followers,  and  oiit  of  the  confusidii  incident  thereid  w<'re 
born  disorder,  schism,  and  ambition  [m  leadershiji.  iMsin 
tegration  .set  in,  and  the  cliur<li  split  in  laclions.  wliidi. 
under  the  lead  of  difl'ereni  lieiis,  siatteieil  to  tliU'erent  parts 
of  the  counti'V.  Among  (lie  "(im)rnm  of  Twelve,"  re|tresent- 
ing  the  apostles,  was  oiu'  Brigham  ^"onng,  a  man  of  intellect- 
ual power,  shrewd  and  aggressive,  if  luit  inidacioiis.  lie 
.seized  the  fallen  reins  of  the  presidency,  and  led  the  greater- 
l»orti(m  of  Moinioiis  out  In  what  was  Unnwn  as  the  Salt 
Lake  or  I'lali  clnircli. 


II I        tin:  (M\ii.  \.\\y  and  'imii:  ciiiijf'ii 

Tlu;  Jiook  of  Docl lines  aii<l  Covriuiiils,  page  411,  rontiiiii- 
ing  Ji  revelation  to  .lose|»li  Smith  .lanuary  U),  ISII,  g;iv<! 
unto  "my  servant  . Joseph,  to  be  a  presiding  elder  over-  all 
my  church,  to  l)e  a  translator,  an<l  a  revelator,  a  Heer  and 
prophet.  1  give  unto  him  for  councilors,  my  servant  Sidney 
Kigdon,  and  my  servant  William  Law,  that  these  nmy  con- 
stitute a  quorum  and  first  presidency,  to  receive  the  oracleH 
for  the  whole  church.  1  give  unto  you  my  servant  Brigliani 
Young,  to  be  a  president  over  the  Twelve,  traveling  council.'' 
So  that  Brigham  Young  was  but  president  over  the  Twelve, 
a  traveling  council.  The  Book  clearly  taught  that  the  suc- 
cession should  descend  lineally,  and  go  to  the  first-born. 
Joseph  Smith,  so  taught,  had,  before  his  taking  off,  jMiblicly 
ordained  his  son,  Joseph,  the  present  head  of  the  complain- 
ant church,  his  successor,  and  he  was  so  anointed. 

Brigham  Young's  assumption  of  this  office  (under  the 
claim  of  something  like  a  transfiguration  i  was  itself  a  de- 
parture from  the  law  of  the  church.  The  Book  of  Mormon 
itself  inveighed  against  the  sin  of  jwlygamy.  Brigham 
Young  taught  that  these  denunciations  of  the  book  were 
leveled  at  the  Indians — the  Lamanites.  Confornmbly  to 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  the  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants 
expressly  declared  "that  we  believe  that  one  man  shonhl 
have  but  one  wife,  and  one  woman  but  one  husband."  This 
declaration  of  the  church  on  this  subject  reappeared  in  the 
Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants,  editions  of  1S4G  and  lS.")r>. 
Its  first  appearance  as  a  dogma  of  the  church  was  in  the 
Utah  church  in  1852.  This  doctrine  was  based  upon  an 
alleged  revelation  to  Josei»h  Smith  in  IS-lo.  No  such  revela- 
tion was  ever  made  public  during  Smith's  life. 

A  considerable  number  of  the  officers  and  members  of 
the  church  at  Nauvoo  did  not  ally  themselves  with  any  of 
the  factions,  and  wherever  they  were  they  held  on  to  the 
faith,  refused  to  follow  Brigham  Young  to  Utah,  and  ever 
repudiated  the  doctrine  of  i)olygamy,  whidi  was  the  great 
rock  of  ott^^euse  on  which  the  church  split  after  the  death  of 
Joseph    Smith.      In    1852   the   scattered    fragments   of    the 


MORMONS  11". 

cliurcli,  the  remii;ni(s  of  those  wlio  hehl  lo  llie  I'urtiiiics  (»!' 
the  present  Joseph  Smitli,  son  of  the  so-called  inaiiyr,  jiath- 
ertMl  toj^ether  sutticiciitly  I'oi-  ;i  iiiich'us  of  oi-jfjiiii/^itioii.  They 
took  the  name  of  the  '•K«'oi-w;iiii/.('<l  (Imicli  of  .Icsus  Christ 
of  Latter  Day  Saints,"  niul  jivowcd  their  Mih'jiiamc  to  the 
teachinji's  of  the  ancient  clnnch  ;  and  tlieir  epitome  of  fiiith 
a(h)j)ted,  while  eontaininji;  dilferences  in  jihraseolojjy.  in  its 
essentials  is  bnt  a  roin-odmtion  of  that  of  the  chnrch  as  it 
existed  from  18:J0  to  1844.  To-ihiy  (lS!»4i  they  are  '2:>Sm) 
in  number. 

Concerning  the  claim  that  the  complainant,  the  Keorgan- 
ized  Chnrch  of  the  Latter  Day  Saints,  had  a  new  Bihh-,  tiie 
court  said:  "The  basis  for  this  is  that  .Joseph  Smith,  the 
founder  of  the  chnrch,  was,  as  early  as  l&iO,  engaged  in  the 
translation  of  the  Bible,  which  he  is  alleged  to  have  com- 
pleted about  183o  or  18;J4."  The  evidence  shows  that  this 
manuscript  was  kept  bj'^  his  wife,  and  delivered  to  the  pres- 
ent Joseph  Smith,  her  son,  and  was  published  by  a  com- 
mittee of  the  church.  It  is  not  claimed  by  Joseph  Smith 
that  this  translation  is  a  substitute  for  the  King  James 
translation,  nor  has  it  been  made  to  appear  that  it  incul- 
cates any  new  religious  tenet  different  from  that  of  the 
ancient  church.  Reorganized  Church  of  .lesjis  Christ  »)f 
Latter  Day  Saints  v  (Jhurch  of  Chiist,  <!()  Fed.  Rep.  !>;;7 
(W.  D.  Mo.  Cir.  Ct.) 


MORTGAGE 

Condition  broken,  right  to  foreclose,  41G. 

Court  order,  416. 

Leave  of  court,  416. 

Priority  as  between  mortgage  and  mechanir's  lien,  417. 

Validity;  Ai-chbi.shoi)  having  no  title  to  the  land,  417. 

Vahdity,  executing  without  authority,  417. 

Vahdity,  extent  of  trustees'  authority,  418 

Vahdity,  legitimate  debt,  418. 

Validity,  meeting  of  trustees;  purchase  money,  418. 

Validity,  trustees  afterward  ousted  from  office,  418. 

Vahdity,  trustees  no  power  to  mortgage  property,  419. 

Condition  Broken,  Right  to  Foreclose.  The  society  gave  a 
inortf>age  to  the  IJoard  of  Cliurch  Erection  Fund,  Gen- 
eral As.senibly  I'resbyterian  Church,  to  secure  a  loan, 
containing  a  con<lition  that  if  the  house  of  worship  or  the 
mortgaged  ])rcniiscs  should  be  alienated  or  abandoned  as  a 
house  of  woi'ship  by  the  local  society,  except  for  the  build- 
ing or  purchase  of  a  better  house  of  worship,  the  amount 
slioiihl  immediately  become  due  and  ])ayable.  It  was  lield 
that  the  churcli  liad  violated  the  condition  by  permitting  the 
property  to  be  sold  on  an  execution  against  it,  the  purchaser 
having  obtained  i)ossession  of  tlie  proi)erty,  an.d  the  mort- 
gagee was  entitled  to  foreclose  the  mortgage.  The  condi- 
tion in  the  mortgage  was  not  void  as  against  public  policy. 
Board  of  Cliiireh  Erection  Fund,  General  Assend)ly  Presby- 
terian (Miureh,  United  States  of  America  v  First  I'resby- 
terian  Church,  Seattle,  19  Wash.  455. 

Court  Order.  In  Planning  v  ^loscow  Presbyterian  Society, 
1*7  Barb.  (>.'.  Y.)  5l*,  it  was  held  that  a  religious  corporation 
might  mortgage  its  property  without  au  order  of  the  court. 

Leave  of  Court.  A  religious  society  ]mrchasing  real  prop- 
erty may  give  a  mortgage  to  secure  the  purchase  ])rice  with- 

416 


MORTaAGK  417 

out  leave  of  the  court.  South  Baptist  Society  v  Ckipp,  18 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  35. 

Priority  as  Between  Mortgage  and  Mechanic's  Lien.  A 
mechauic'.s  lien  on  a  church  i)uihliii<^  was  loreclo.sed,  and  the 
decree  directed  the  sale  of  the  building  without  the  laud. 
This  was  held  error.  There  was  a  jirior  niortpi.ue  on  the 
land.  It  was  held  that  the  niortgaj-or  had  tiie  lirst  claim  on 
the  land,  and  a  lien  on  the  building,  subject  to  a  mechanic's 
claim;  and  that  the  mechanic's  lien  attached  t<>  the  land 
subject  to  the  mortgage  lien.  Separate  apiiraisals  of  the 
land  and  building  were  directed,  and  the  proceeds  of  the 
sale  of  the  entire  projK'rty  were  ordered  divided  between  the 
mortgagee  and  the  mechanic  so  far  as  needed  to  pay  their 
respective  claims,  according  to  the  ratable  value  of  tlie  two 
parts  of  the  property.  North  ri-eshylei-iaii  (1iui-(h,  Chicago 
V  Jevne,  et  al  :V2  III.  214. 

Validity;  Archbishop  Having  No  Title  to  the  Land.  Testa- 
trix gave  land  to  the  clniich,  and  the  Archldshop  of  Louis- 
iana assumed  authority  over  the  land,  and  directed  the  exe- 
cution of  a  mortgage  thereon  by  a  subordinate  officer.  The 
moi'tgage  was  held  v<)i<l.  It  was  said  that  the  pi-ojuM-ty  could 
be  hyi)othecated  only  by  the  owner,  or  by  some  one  autlntr- 
ized  to  act  for  the  owner.  There  ^^as  no  evidence  lh.it  tlie 
;irchbishop  had  authority  to  hypfMhecate  the  propej-ty.  The 
archbi.shoj)  did  not  own  the  property,  jmd  he  derived  no  title 
by  the  will.    Levasseur  v  Martin,  1 1  La.  Ann.  «Isl 

Validity,  Executing  without  Authority.  Lan<l  was  conveyed 
to  the  bishoj)  of  the  diocese,  in  trust  foi-,  ;ind  for  the  use  of, 
the  wardens,  vestry,  and  congregatiitn  of  St.  I'.iurs  I'ai-jsli. 
Afterward  five  vt'sti-yinen  gave  a  ju'oniissory  note  for  money 
borrowed,  and  also  for  .security  <'.\ecuted  a  mortgage  on  the 
part  of  the  land  conveyed  to  the  bishop.  An  action  to  fore- 
close the  moi-tgage  was  bi-ought  against  the  bishop,  church- 
wardens, and  othei's.  and  also  to  enforce  :iii  e«piitable  lien 
on  all  the  real  |»i-opeity  conveyed  to  ihe  bisliMp  I'oi-  the 
amount  of  the  note. 

The  mortgage  was  held  void,  :iihI  ;m  jiciiuii  tonld  nui   be 


418  THK  CINII.   LAW  AND  Till:  ('IUKCII 

iii;iiiitiiiii('(l  tlicivon.  Tlic  society  \\;is  not  incorporated;  the 
vestrymen  had  no  authority  to  exec  ute  the  mortgage,  nor  to 
incumber  tlie  i)roperty  witliout  the  consent  of  tlie  bishop, 
whicli  consent  had  not  l)e<'n  given.  Hill  Estate  Company  v 
Whittlesey,  21  Wash.  142. 

Validity,  Extent  of  Trustees'  Authority.  A  meeting  of  the 
society  which  was  unincoi-poratcd  was  held  sufficient  uikIci" 
circumstances  showing  that  notice  was  given  in  the  usual 
manner.  A  mortgage  execute*!  by  a  majority  of  the  trustees 
to  secure  a  loan  authorized  by  a  committee  was  held  to  be 
a  valid  obligation  against  the  society.  Ilubbard  v  German 
Catholic  Congregation,  .*>4  la.  31. 

Validity,  Legitimate  Debt.  The  society  received  a  convey- 
ance of  land  on  which  it  erected  a  house  of  worship.  The 
deed  contained  a  provision  that  the  society  should  not 
alienate,  dispose  of,  or  otherwise  incumber  the  property. 
The  society  gave  a  mortgage  on  the  property  to  secure  a 
legitimate  debt.  This  mortgage  was  held  valid.  Magie  v 
German  Evangelical  Dutch  Church,  l.j  N.  J.  Eq.  77. 

Validity,  Meeting  of  Trustees ;  Purchase  Money.  A  mortgage 
given  by  a  New  York  religious  corporation  was  executed  by 
all  of  the  trustees  except  one,  who  had  resigne<l,  but  there 
was  no  order  or  resolution  of  the  board  directing  the  execu- 
tion. The  referee  found  that  in  executing  the  mortgage  the 
trustees  acted  as  a  board  of  trustees  of  the  jdaintiff,  and 
that  though  all  who  signed  it  were  not  present  at  tlie  same 
time,  yet  that  a  majority  of  the  trustees  were  })resent  part 
of  the  time  when  it  was  executed.  The  mortgage  was  held 
to  be  as  binding  as  if  a  formal  resolution  had  been  previously 
passed.  It  was  also  held  that  a  religious  corporation  may 
make  a  purchase  money  mortgage  without  an  order  of  the 
court  authorizing  it.  South  Baptist  Society.  Albany  v 
Clapp,  18  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  35.  See  also  note  above.  Leave  of 
Court. 

Validity,  Trustees  Afterward  Ousted  from  Office.  Lovett  v 
German  Reformed  Church.  12  Barb.  ( N.  Y.  i  tJT.  involved  the 
validity  of  a  mortgage  made  by  trustees  who  were  afterward 


MORTOAGE  lilt 

ousted  from  ollice  by  the  i-eveisal  ol'  a  decree  estahlishiuji 
their  origiual  right  to  the  ottice.  The  mortgage  was  deilared 
to  be  a  valid  lien. 

Validity,  Trustees  no  Power  to  Mortgage  Property.  The 
society  gave  a  mortgage  on  its  property  to  si*c\ire  a  preexist- 
ing debt.  The  mortgage  was  foreclosed  aii<l  the  i»roi»erty 
sold.  The  church  had  elected  trustees  to  manage  its  prop- 
erty, but  the  title  to  the  projjerty  was  not  vested  in  such 
trustees.  The  trustees  could  not  buy  or  sell  ciiurch  prop- 
erty nor  could  they  mortgage  the  same.  An  agreement  be- 
tween the  i)urchaser  of  the  ])roperty  at  the  foreclosure  sale 
and  the  church  trustees,  by  which  the  ]>roperty  was  to  be 
conveyed  to  the  church,  though  unauthorized,  was  deemed 
to  have  been  ratified  by  the  congregation.  But  the  contra<t 
lacked  mutuality,  ami  it  was  held  that  an  action  by  lln' 
trustees  to  enforce  performance  of  the  contract  could  nut 
be  maintained.    Calvary  Bajjtist  Church  v  Dart,  G8  S.  C.  221. 


MORTMAIN 

Defined,  420. 
Delaware,  420. 
Grenada,  420. 
Pennsylvania,  420. 
South  Carolina,  420. 

Defined.  The  term  "nioi'tiiunii"  is  npy^ied  to  denote  tlie 
j»oss('ssioii  of  lands  or  tenenieuls  l»y  any  corixn-ation,  sole  or 
agoregate,  ecclesiastical  or  tenij)oral.  These  purchases  hav- 
ing been  chiefly  made  by  religious  houses,  in  consequence  of 
which  lands  became  perpetually  inherent  in  one  dead  hand, 
this  has  occasioned  the  general  appellation  of  mortmain  to 
be  api)lied  to  such  alienations.    Bouvier's  Law  Dictionary. 

Delaware.  The  provisions  of  the  Delaware  statute  relat- 
ing to  mortmain  do  not  render  invalid  a  legacy  to  certain 
religious  corporations  to  be  paid  from  proceeds  of  the  .sale 
of  land  to  be  sold  b}'  the  executor  under  a  power  conferred 
by  the  will.  American  Tract  Society  v  Purdy  Executors, 
3  Hon  St.  (Del.)  025. 

Grenada.  The  English  statute  of  mortmain  is  wholly  polit- 
ical. It  grew  out  of  local  circumstances,  and  was  meant  to 
have  merely  a  local  operation.  The  thing  to  be  prevented 
was  a  mischief  existing  in  England,  and  it  was  by  the  qual- 
ity and  extent  of  the  mischief  as  it  there  existed  that  the 
propriety  of  legislative  interference  upon  the  subject  was  to 
be  determined.  It  was  not  extended  to  any  other  part  of 
the  British  dominions,  and  was,  therefore,  not  in  force  in 
the  island  of  Grenada.  Attorney  General  v  Stewart.  -  Morv. 
(Eng.)   U:i. 

Pennsylvania.  British  statutes  of  mortmain  are  not  in 
force  in  Pennsylvania.  Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary 
Society's  Appeal,  IM)  Pa.  St.  42."),  4;U. 

South  Carolina.  British  statutes  of  mortnmin  are  not  in 
force  here.  American  Bil)le  Society  v  Noble.  11  Rich.  Eq. 
(S.  C.)  15r),  175. 

420 


MUNICIPAL  ORDINANCES 

Parades,  421. 

Preaching  on  Boston  Common,  421. 

Parades.  An  ordinaiuc  adoplcd  by  llic  initlioiitics  of  ilie 
city  of  Wellington,  Kansas,  i»iovi(lin<i  that  "it  shall  be 
unlawful  for  any  person  or  i)ersons,  society,  association  or 
organization,  under  whatsoever  name,  to  i)arade  any  public 
street,  avenue,  or  alley,  shouting,  singing  or  beating  drums 
or  tambourines,  or  jdaying  any  other  musical  instruments 
or  doing  any  other  act  or  acts  designed,  intended  or  cal- 
culated to  attract  or  call  together  an  unusual  crowd  or 
congregation  of  i)eople  ui)on  any  of  the  said  streets,  avenues 
or  alleys,  witliout  having  first  obtained  in  writing  the  con- 
sent of  the  major  of  said  city,  authoi-izing  such  parade,"  was 
declared  to  be  illegal  and  void.  It  was  unreasonable  an«l 
did  not  fix  conditions  uniformly  and  impartially  and  contra- 
vened a  common  right.    Anderson  v  Wellington,  40  Kan.  17:^. 

Preaching  on  Boston  Common.  An  oidiiiMiice  of  the  city 
of  Boston,  enacted  under  authority  of  the  statute  pi-ohibit- 
ing  the  delivery  of  a  sermon  on  the  Common  without  tlie 
permission  of  a  specified  committee  was  sustained  in  Com- 
monwealth V  Davis,  140  Mass.  485. 


421 


MUSIC 

Bequest  for,  when  invalid,  422. 

Country  choirs,  422. 
Inst  runicnt  al,  422. 
Organist,  422. 

Bequest  for,  When  Invalid,  (lift  for  f)rjj}in  jjallerv  ;\n(\ 
(H-};;in  llici-eiii  declaiiMl  invalid  under  statute  of  mortmain. 
Adnam  v  Cole,  G  Beav.  (Erig.)  353. 

Country  Choirs.  Usually  church  music  is  <;ratuitous  iu 
small  country  villages  or  hamlets.  The  choir  is  made  u])  of 
amateurs,  often  but  little  instructed  in  the  science  of 
melody;  and  this  part  of  church  service  is,  in  such  places, 
rather  the  observance  of  religious  duty  than  the  exercise  of 
professional  art  and  cultivated  taste.  The  vocalist,  and 
those  who  aid  with  instruments,  do  not  exi)ect  or  desire 
pecuniary  recompense.  The  mere  fact  that  one  sings  in  the 
choir,  or  plays  on  an  instrument  as  an  accompaniment,  on 
occasions  of  church  serevice  on  Sabbath  days,  raises  no 
implication  of  pecuniary  liability,  against  the  corporate 
body.    These  services  are  presumed  to  be  gratuitous. 

Bockes,  .T.,  in  Van  Buren  v  Kcformed  Church  of  Ganse- 
voort.  X.  Y..  02  Barb.  ( N.  Y. )  41)5.  It  was  held  in  this  case 
that  an  action  to  recover  compensation  for  services  as  an 
organist  could  not  be  maintained  without  proof  of  an  actual 
eni])]oyment. 

Instrumental.  Singing  is  recognized  as  a  part  of  divine 
worshi]),  among  almost  all  denominations  of  (Christians. 
Whether  it  should  or  should  not  be  accomi)anied  with  in- 
strumental music  must  be  determined  by  those  who  admin- 
ister the  disci]dine  of  the  church  to  which  they  belong. 
Tarter  v  (Jibl.s.  lU  Md.  31':?. 

Organist.     In  Walnut  Street  Pres.  Ch.  3  Brewst.  (  Pa.  i  L'77. 

122 


MUSIC  4L>:: 

the  court  refused  to  autliorize  an  aiiu'iKlment  to  a  cliurrli 
charter  which  i)roi)ose(l  to  vest  in  tlic  trustees  the  power  to 
apjtoint  an  organist,  subject  to  the  aj>proval  of  the  session, 
on  the  ground  that,  according  to  the  rides  of  the  I'resltyte- 
rian  Church,  questions  rehiting  to  worship  arc  witlnu  the 
exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  session,  and  that  this  tiiiiciion 
couhl  not  projterly  be  vested  in  the  trustees. 


NEW  THOUGHT  CHURCH 

Described,  424. 

Described.  The  i)lainliff  was  organized  by  the  name  of 
llie  "New  Thought  Cluircli."  It  sought  to  enjoin  the  defend- 
ant from  conducting  services  under  the  name  of  ''New 
Thought  Church  Services."  It  claimed  to  teach  a  form  of 
religion  based  upon  what  is  termed  "New  Thought,"  but  it 
was  conceded  that  it  coubl  not  successfully  claim  a  monoj)- 
oly  of  the  words  "New  Thought"  or  of  the  word  "Church." 
but  it  claimed  the  right  to  monopolize  the  combination  of 
those  words.  "The  plaintitf  apparently  has  founded  a  new 
system  of  religion  based  on  a  new  creed."  It  surely  is 
not  in  a  position  to  successfully  claim  a  monopoly  of  teach- 
ing this  form  of  religious  faith  by  means  of  organizations 
known  by  the  generic  names  of  churches.  The  injunction 
was  denied.  New  Thought  Church  v  Chapin,  151)  A.  D. 
(N.  Y.)  723. 


424 


NORWEGIAN  EVANGELICAL  LUTHERAN 
CHURCH 

Organization  and  form  of  government,  425. 
Independent  society,  division  of  property,  426. 
Property,  division,  elTect,  427. 
Trustees,  controversy  over  election  not  a  schism,  428. 

Organization  and  Form  of  Government.  At  a  nieetiiij^  in 
January,  1851,  composed  of  representatives  of  the  Nor- 
wegian Evaiigvlical  J^utlieraiis  o\'  Scuidicrii  Wisconsin  :in(l 
Northern  Illinois  held  at  Luther  N'alley,  in  liock  County,  a 
constitution  was  adopted  containing,  among  other  things, 
the  following  jirovision  :  "TIio  doclrinc  of  llic  clinrch  is  tlic 
one  revealed  in  the  Uoly  \\'or<l  of  (iod,  in  tiie  bai)tisnial 
covenant,  and  in  the  canonical  writings  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  intcrjireted  in  accordance  wilh  the  symbol ic.i I 
books  and  confessional  writings  of  the  Church  of  Norw;iy. 
which  are  the  Ai)ostolic  Creed ;  the  Nicene  Creed ;  the  Atli.in 
asian  Creed;  the  Unaltoi-ed  Ai-Ucles  of  tlie  Aug.sbnrg  Con- 
fession delivered  to  tlie  J'^mjieror  Cbarlcs  the  ~^\h  ;il  Augs- 
burg, 15:»0;  tlie  Smaller  Catechism  of  J^nlhcr." 

The  constitution  conljiincd  rc!j,uliit  ions  concerning  Ihc 
qualilications  of  niinislcis  and  the  foi-nis  of  public  \\orslii|i. 
It  provided  foi"  a  synod,  conij»osed  of  niinislers,  lucsidinn 
over  particuliir  congregalions  ;iii<I  i-ei»resenl;il  i\i's  fioni 
every  congregation  united  willi  the  synod.  Among  Hie 
powers  of  the  sj'iiod  were  the  lollowing:  to  nmUe  genenil 
and  special  rules  and  resolutions  in  all  religious  and  eccle- 
siastical matters;  to  decide,  without  fuilhei-  ;i|>|>e;il,  upon 
all  matters  of  the  church;  to  select  a  superinleii<len1  fioni 
among  the  clergy  connected  wilh  the  church;  to  select  from 
its  members  a  church  c<»uncil.   to  consist   of  not    less  than 

425 


ilm;        Tin:  (M\  il  law  and  thio  cuvuch 

(wo  cleric;! I  and  lonr  lay  members,  which  shall  l)«;  jn-opor- 
tioiially  llic  same  if  Iho  inimbcr  be  increased. 

The  constitution  was  submitted  to  the  congregations  and 
was  approved,  taking  effect  in  1S53.  No  other  syiuxl  (H- 
conference  of  Lutherans  bearing  that  name  has  ever  been 
organized  in  the  United  States.  A  new  constitution  was 
adopted  in  1876,  including  a  change  of  name  to  the  Synod 
of  the  Norwegian  lOvangelical  Lutlieran  (Jhurch  of  America. 
Fadness  v  Braunborg,  7'.\  Wis.  257. 

Independent  Society,  Division  of  Property.  This  society 
(Koshkonong  Congregation)  was  organized  prior  to  1852,  but 
the  case  does  not  show  the  date.  I'rior  to  May  20,  1852,  the 
members  of  this  congregation  living  on  Liberty  Prairie  vol- 
untarily separated  from  Koshkonong  Congregation  and  or- 
ganized themselves  into  the  Norwegian  Evangelical  Lu- 
theran Church  of  St.  Paul's  on  Liberty  Prairie.  These  two 
congregations  were  five  or  six  miles  ai)art  and  were  served 
by  the  some  pastor  until  1860.  May  20,  1852,  laud  was  con- 
veyed to  certain  persons  as  trustees,  in  trust  for  the  erec- 
tion of  a  house  of  worship  on  the  land,  for  the  use  of  the 
members  of  St.  Paul's  Church  according  to  the  rules  of  the 
church,  and  according  to  the  rules  which  may  be  adopted 
from  time  to  time  by  their  authorized  synods  or  conferences. 
Vacancies  in  the  oflBce  of  trustees  were  to  be  tilled  by  the 
congregation.  A  meeting  house  was  erected  on  the  lot.  The 
two  congregations  of  Koshkonong  and  Liberty  Prairie  acted 
jointly  for  the  most  part  until  1860  with  an  arrangement 
that  if  either  society  should  desire  to  become  in<lei)endent, 
the  society  withdrawing  from  the  union  should  be  entitled 
to  receive  one  half  the  value  of  the  i)arsonage.  The  society 
was  incorporated  in  1862.  and  the  corporation  thereupon 
became  vested  with  the  legal  title  to  the  property  conveyed 
to  the  trustees  as  above  stated. 

The  society  was  substantially  independent,  although  sus- 
taining certain  relations  to  the  synod,  and  while  under  gen- 
eral rules  the  call  of  the  i)astor  was  presumed  to  be  for  life, 
a  majority  of  the  corporators  had  power  to  discharge  a  min- 


NORWEGIAN  EVANGELICAL  LUTHEKAN       ii'7 

ister  at  any  time.  Early  in  tlie  year  18S;]  a  siliism  arose  in 
the  Liberty  Prairie  Congregation  over  the  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion. The  i>ast(>r,  at  the  ret[nest  of  tilty-one  members,  called 
a  meeting  for  the  consideration  of  this  question.  That  meet- 
ing adopted,  by  a  large  majority,  articles  of  confession  on 
the  subject  of  electi()n.  After  May  17,  1.SS5,  a  portiim  of  the 
minority  separated  from  the  congregation  and  worshii)ed  in 
halls  and  private  houses  under  the  ministrations  i>\'  \\\r 
pastor  who  had  been  discharged  by  vote  of  a  large  majority 
of  the  congregation.  March  :^,  188G,  the  i)ortion  of  the 
minority  who  had  so  withdrawn  held  a  meeting  and  clecicd 
trustees,  and  directed  the  trustees  .so  elected  to  demand  i he- 
books  of  the  society.  An  action  was  commenced  by  the 
minority  trustees  against  the  majority  trustees  to  have  the 
minority  trustees  declared  the  rightful  ti-ustees  of  the  so- 
ciety, and  for  the  possession  of  the  church  proj)erty.  The 
trial  court  rendered  a  judgment  in  favor  of  the  minority 
trustees,  but  this  was  reversed  on  api)eal,  and  the  majority 
held  to  be  Ihe  true  church  and  entitled  to  the  po.ssession  and 
control  of  the  property.    Fadness  v  Braunborg,  7:3  Wis.  l*r>7. 

Property,  Division,  Effect.  For  several  years  pri(»r  to  Feb- 
ruary, 188!),  the  title  to  the  church  in  which  the  mend)ers  of 
the  association  worshiped  was  vested  in  trustees  named  in 
the  deeds,  and  their  successoi's  in  of1ic«'.  I<""or  several  years 
two  factions  had  existed  in  this  society,  but  had  worshiped 
together  until  January  9,  1888.  On  that  day  both  factions 
met  together  at  the  regular  annual  meeting  of  the  associa- 
tion. At  that  time  all  the  trustees  and  a  lai-gc  majority  of 
the  association  belonged  to  the  faction  known  as  the  Anti- 
Missourians,  rejtresented  by  the  defendants;  lint  Ihe  ndn- 
ister  and  a  minority  of  the  association  belonged  to  the  inac- 
tion known  as  the  Missourians,  represented  by  the  |>l;iintilis. 

At  this  meeting  the  Missourians  withdrew  and  elected 
trustees  in  place  of  those  claiming  to  have  been  deposed. 
For  the  next  year  both  tactions  held  services  at  dilVerent 
times  in  the  same  chnn-h,  each  under  its  own  pastor. 

February  7,  188!),  a  corporation  was  foimed,  which  was 


iL's        Tin-:  <'i\  I  L  LAW  .\M>  Tin:  ciukcii 

lu'id  lo  iiirliKic  l)()lli  I'lK'l  ions,  :iimI  the  oM-ponit  iuii  thiMM-hy 
became  vcslcd  willi  llic  lillc  lo  tlir  |tr<»i»»'iiy  jtrcviously  licld 
by  Ihe  s(K-i('(y.  "^riic  j(l;iiiilill',  llic  Missoiiri;ni  i);irly,  iillcr- 
ward  organi/.ed  aiiollier  coi'iioration,  bul  litis  was  licdd  not 
to  affect  the  powers  of  the  corporation  loinicd  in  I'chiiiary, 
ISSO.     TTolin  V  Holm,  SI   Wis.  '^~^. 

Trustees,  Controversy  over  Election  not  a  Schism.  J'roperty 
was  acquired  by  the  society  uuder  a  general  agreement  that 
i(  slioidd  be  lield  and  use<l  for  r(di<j;ions  puritoscs.  with  a 
l)rovisiou  that  "in  case  of  a  schism  (wliich  (lod  forbid)  the 
right  of  possessing  the  common  property  of  the  congrega- 
tion is  to  <lcvolve  Tii)on  a  two-tliirds  majority  of  its  voting 
members.  The  price  which  those  who  then  retain  the  prop- 
ertj^  are  to  pay  to  those  who  then  lose  their  interest  in  it  is 
lo  be  fixed  according  to  tlie  valnation  made  by  three  men,  of 
whom  each  party  chose  one,  and  these  two  a  third." 

A  controversy  having  arisen  over  the  election  of  trustees, 
it  was  held  that  this  did  not  constitute  a  scliism  within  tlie 
meaning  of  the  term  as  applied  in  the  constitution  of  the 
society.  That,  although  a  part  of  the  society  had  taken  pos- 
.session  of  the  pro])erty  and  excluded  the  other  part,  the  law 
afforded  an  ample  remedy  against  the  wrongful  trustees  by 
quo  warranto,  or  otherwise  in  equity  by  injunction  to  pre- 
vent unlawful  acts,  and  there  could  be  no  division  of  the 
property  as  contemplated  by  the  constitution.  Nelson  v 
Benson,  69  111.  27. 


NUISANCE 

Damages,  429. 

Damages.  First  Baptist  Church,  Schenectady  v  Troy  ^V: 
Scheuectady  R.  R.  Co.,  o  Barb.  (N.  Y. )  79,  was  an  action 
brought  by  a  religious  society  against  a  railroad  company 
to  prevent  the  continuance  of  an  alleged  nuisance  by  the 
company  resulting  from  the  ringing  of  bells,  blowing  off 
steam,  and  making  other  noises  in  the  vicinity  of  the  church 
during  service  on  the  Sabbath  which  so  annoyed  and 
molested  the  congregation  worshiping  there  as  greatly  to 
dei)reciate  the  value  of  the  house  and  rendering  the  same 
unfit  for  a  house  of  religious  worship.  The  church  corj)ora- 
tion  was  held  entitled  to  recover  damages  for  the  alleged 
disturbance  of  its  meetings  by  the  railroad  comi>any,  and 
by  direction  of  the  court  the  jurj'  asses.sed  the  damages  at 
six  cents.  In  a  similar  action  brought  by  the  trustees  of 
the  same  society  against  another  railroad  com])any  (First 
Baptist  Church  in  Schenectady  v  The  Utica  &  Schenectady 
Railroad  Company,  6  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  313),  it  was  held  that 
damages  claimed  by  the  society  resulting  from  the  dejtrecia- 
tion  in  the  value  of  the  church  property  in  conse(pience  of 
ringing  bells,  blowing  off  steam,  etc.,  could  not  be  recovered 
against  the  i-ailroad  company,  such  damages  being  ten) 
remote.  An  individual  nuMuber  of  the  congregation  cannot 
maintain  an  action  for  damages  for  disturbing  divine  wor 
ship. 


429 


OATH 


Defined,  430. 
Jew,  \M. 


Defined.  "An  oath  is  well  (Iclincd  to  he  tlio  solciiiii  iiiv(»c:i- 
lion  of  the  vengeance  ol"  the  Deilv  it  the  jtei-son  sworn  <1<) 
not  rejjanl  the  iHMjnisitions  ol'  the  oath."     Ainohl  v  Aiiiohl, 

13  vt.  :'.(;;5. 

Jew.  A  .Few  may  take  an  oath  on  the  Ohl  Testament. 
Rex  V  Boswoi'th,  2  Str.  (Eng.  i  111;';  see  article  ^Vitness, 
snbtitle  idolater. 


430 


OFFICERS 

Conunittee,  tenure,  431. 

De  I'acto,  431. 

Eligibility,  when  presumed,  431. 

Holding  over,  432. 

Committee,  Tenure.  A  conunittee  to  take  action  on  a  .spe- 
cific object  was  a])j)ointecl  from  among  the  vestrymen  of  the 
society.  Afterward  the  members  of  the  committee  were 
ousted  from  office  as  vestrymen.  It  was  lield  that  the  right 
of  these  persons  to  act  as  a  committee  depended  on  their 
continuing  in  office  as  vestrymen,  and  when  they  ceased  to 
be  vestrymen  their  right  to  act  as  a  committee  was  termi- 
nated. People  ex  rel  the  Kector  v  Bhukhurst,  00  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  (;:{. 

De  Facto.  I'ersons  wlio  had  been  chosen  to  various  church 
offices  by  the  members  of  the  society  in  the  usual  way  aiid 
in  conformity  with  the  statute,  were  deemed  to  be  the  oiily 
officers  on  whom  valid  jtrocess  could  be  served  in  a  ]»roceed- 
ing  against  tlie  society.  They  were  at  least  de  facto  officers. 
Berrian  v  Methodist  Society,  New  York,  4  Abb.  I'r.  (  N.  V.  i 
424. 

To  make  one  a  de  facto  officer  he  must  be  acting  as  ;in 
officer  under  color  of  liaving  been  rightfully  elected  or  ;ip- 
pointed.  A  minority  of  a  congregation,  a.ssuming  to  li<»ld  ;iii 
election,  cannot  give  to  trustees  chosen  by  them  e\cii  tin' 
color  of  office,  and  such  trustees  are  not  de  facto  olliccrs. 
Trustees  v  Ilalvorson.  iL*  Minn.  50:5. 

Eligibility,  When  Presumed.  If  eligibility  dciicnds  on  a 
person's  qualitications  as  a  voter,  and  his  vote  is  received  at 
a  church  election  witliout  challenge,  he  is  presume<l  (jualitied 
as  a  voter  and  therefore  (pialitied  to  liold  office:  and  after 
the  result  of  the  election  lias  been  dccbiicd   (he  presiding 

431 


i:v2        tin;  r\\  \  l  i,.\\\  .\m»  'iiii:  cm  ijcii 

olliccr  cMiiiKit  icvisc  (lie  result,  dcchn'c  lluit  tlic  |»('is(tii 
I'U'dcd  \\;is  not  :i  <|iiiilirM'(l  v(>l<*r,  jiimI  tlicrcfoi-c  not  ciilillcl 
to  IIm'  (.nice.     Re  Willi;niis,  57  Misc.  (\.  V.  t  .".L'T. 

Holding  Over.  The  iomniittee  elected  by  ilic  (Imicli  in 
^[jircli,  1S;I(>,  for  one  yciir  was  held  to  coiitimic  in  otlice  after 
the  exjtiratioii  of  the  year  and  until  another  coniniittee  was 
elected.  Thei-e  was  a  meetin*^  of  the  society  in  M:ii(  h,  18'{2, 
but  this  was  liehl  ii-i-ej^nlar  foi-  lack  of  ]>roj)er  notice,  and  the 
committee  elected  at  that  meetinj^  could  not  take  the  oflice. 
Congregational  Society,  Bethany  v  Sperry,  10  Conn.  200; 
see  Trustees  and  Vestry. 


PARISH 

Business,  how  transacted,  433. 

Clerk,  433. 

Committee,  contract,  434. 

Defined,  434. 

Dissolution,  effect,  434. 

Division,  effect,  434. 

Ecclesiastical  council,  435. 

Massachusetts,  435. 

Massachusetts,  history,  435. 

Meetinghouse,  may  bo  leased,  436. 

Meetinghouse,  title  after  division  of  town,  436. 

Members,  habihty  for  debt,  436. 

Member,  reimbursement  for  claim  paid,  437. 

Memberslup,  437. 

Minister,  437. 

Muiister,  how  appointed,  438. 

Minister's  title  to  property,  438. 

Minor,  taxation,  438. 

Parishioner,  438. 

Parsonage,  439. 

PoU  Parish,  439. 

Powers,  439. 

Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  defined,  439. 

Roman  Cathohc,  440. 

Taxation,  440. 

Business,  How  Transacted.  Tt  was  tlie  niicient  custom  of 
Massacluisc'tts  where  a  town  consisted  of  one  i>arisli  to 
transact  their  i)ai'ochial  concerns  at  town  meetings,  makinj; 
no  (liffei'ence  in  the  foi-ms  of  their  ])rocee(liii<>s,  when  actlMUj 
upon  those  subjects  or  ni)on  matters  of  mere  mnniciital  or 
jjolitical  concern.    Austin  v  Thomas.  14  Mass.  338. 

Clerk.  A  |)arisli  ch'i-k  having;  been  disinissed  frcmi  his 
ollice  by  the  rector,  thouy;h  irre<;nlarly,  ami  another  ap- 
jjointed,  the  former  entered  tlie  »  hmc  li  before  divine  service 
had  comnuMH-ed  and  took  jxissession  of  ll.e  cliM-k's  .seat.  It 
was  held  that  the  clini-cliwardens  were  jnstitied  in  riMiioviiig 
him  from  the  clerk's  desk,  and  also  onl  of  tlie  church,  if  they 

433 


i::i        Tin;  ri\ii.  i.aw  and  Tin:  ciii  kcii 

li;iil  I'ciisoiiiihic  ;;rniiii«ls  I'of  hclicN  in;:;  lli;il  Im'  \v«»iii<l  ollVr 
iiilci-i'ujilion  diirinji'  (lie  (•(•Icltr.il  ion  of  divine  service.  Bur- 
ton  V   Ilrns(Mi,   H)  Mceson  ^;  Welslty    (  lOhj^.  I    lO."). 

Committee,  Contract.  Where  ;i  jiarish  apjjoinled  a  eoiii- 
niillee  of  (lir<'e  to  linild  a  meetinghouse  a  coutract  luude  by 
one  of  (he  nundier  was  not  Itiinlinj;'  on  the  parish.  KM|d'er  v 
South  I'arish,  An«;nsta,  12  Mass.  isr>. 

Defined.  In  I'ennsylvania  the  term  "|»arish"  lias  no  esjx*- 
cial  lej^al  siiini  Ileal  ion  ;  it  is  use<l  merely  in  its  <ienei-al  .sjMi.se. 
In  l^i^lish  ecclesiastical  law  it  has  been  used  to  desi«;nate 
the  territoiy  committed  to  the  particular  cbarge  of  a  parson 
or  priest.  In  the  al>sen('e  of  a  state  church  here,  howevei-. 
the  status  of  a  i)arisli  is  rendered  comi)aratively  unim- 
portant ;  if  used  in  ecclesiastical  divisions,  it  has  just  such 
impoT'tance  and  ])articular  sijipiification  as  may  be  given  it 
under  ecclesiastical  regulatious.  The  rules  of  a  church  or- 
ganization constitute  the  law  for  its  government,  and  the 
civil  court  will,  in  general,  recognize  and  enforce  the.se  as 
any  other  voluntary  agreement  between  the  parties.  But 
what  nmj'  be  the  law  of  the  church  government  is  a  matter 
of  fact  in  courts  of  law,  and  must  appear  in  the  proof. 
Tuigg  V  Treaty,  104  Ta.  493. 

Dissolution,  Effect.  The  omission  of  a  parish  for  one  year 
to  elect  i)arisli  officers  does  not  necessarily  oj)erate  as  a  dis- 
solution of  the  parish ;  and  if  it  did,  the  ])arish  property 
would  not,  therefore,  vest  in  the  town,  although  the  town 
held  the  i)roi)erty  in  its  parochial  capacity  before  the  parish 
was  separately  organized.  Tobey  v  Wareham  Bank,  13  Met. 
(Mass.)  440.  " 

Division,  Effect.  A  debt  incurred  by  a  town  comprising 
one  jiarish  lor  building  a  meetinghouse  was  held  to  be  due 
from  the  whole  town  after  a  part  had  been  incorporated  as 
a  second  j)arish,  the  meetinghouse  being  within  the  limits 
of  the  first  parish.    Eager  v  Marlborough,  10  Mass.  430. 

Where  lauds,  which  had  been  originally  granted  to  a  town 
for  the  use  of  the  ministry  were  sold  by  virtue  of  a  resolve 
of  the  Legislature  and  the  money  put  at  interest  by  the 


1>ARISH  435 

town,  the  annual  income  to  be  applied  to  the  use  of  the  niin- 
isliv;  and  afterward,  a  number  of  the  inhabitants  being 
incorporated  into  a  separate  religions  society,  the  residue 
became  a  distinct  parish  ;  it  was  held  that  this  residue,  those 
forming  a  distinct  i)arish,  succeeded  to  all  the  jiarochial 
rights  and  duties  of  the  town,  and  were  entitled  to  recover 
of  the  town  the  money  and  interest  arising  from  the  salrs 
of  such  land.  First  Parish.  Winthroj*  v  Town  of  ^^■illtl^•oll. 
1  Me.  2()S. 

Ecclesiastical  Council.  As  to  the  effect  of  the  action  oC  :iii 
ecclesiastical  conncil  recommending  the  dissolution  of  tiic 
relations  between  the  i)astor  and  Jiis  ]>ai-ish,  see  Bedfortl 
case  in  the  article  on  Congregational  Church. 

Massachusetts.  Originally,  all  our  religions  societies  were 
corporate  bodies.  The  town  at  first  exer<'ised  ]tar(»(lii,il 
powers,  most  of  the  ]>eople  of  this  State  being  of  one  de- 
nomination. But  as  vai'ieties  <d'  oi)ini<»n  sjtrang  np  it  be- 
came necessary  to  sejtarate  the  i)arochial  from  the  niunicijiiil 
business,  and  the  parishes  foi-nied  sejtarate  organizations. 
Other  religions  societies  were  incorjioiated  by  special  acts; 
but  many  congregations  remained  unincorporated.  Some 
persons  had  conscientious  scruples  against  corporations, 
and  others  preferred  to  manage  their  religions  affairs  in  a 
different  way.  The  act  of  ISll  authorized  unincorporated 
societies  to  take  and  hold  property  and  manage  the  same  by 
agents  oi-  otherwise.     Silsby  v  Barlow,  10  Gray  (Mass.)  '.\2*.). 

Massachusetts,  History.  "From  the  earliest  settlenu'iit  of 
the  colony  the  territoi-y.  as  fast  as  it  was  gi-anti'd  ont  to 
actual  settlei's,  was  divided  int<>  terT-itorial  |)ai'islies.  and 
each  parish  was  a  corjioration.  In  many  cases  towns  ionsti- 
tuted  parishes;  that  is,  each  town  was  a  coi-poration.  com- 
bining all  tlie  i»()wers  and  functions  both  of  a  parochial  ami 
of  a  mnnicijial  corporation,  and  imder  one  organization 
provided  for  the  erection  of  meetinghouses,  the  support  of 
])ublic  worshi]).  and  incidental  expenses.  Large  towns  were 
sometimes  <livided  into  two  oi-  moi'e  territorial  pai-ishes.  in 
which  case  each   parish   was  a  corporation,   with   its  proper 


i::(;        Tin:  <'i\ii>  \..\\\  .wh  'I'lii;  cm  iicii 

oi'f^jiiii/nl  ion  ;iii<l  ((llii-crs."  I'iii'isln's  wcir  r<M|iiir('(|  In  pi-o- 
vi<lo  for  lilt'  iiiiiiiitcniiiicc  of  piihlic  worship  ;iii<l  I  lie  siippoi-1 
of  snitjililc  iiiiiiisUM's  jiihI  religions  Iciiclicrs.  The  |>;iiisli 
system  wliidi  ;i|)plied  genci-illy  llirou^flioii(  lli<-  Stnlc,  did 
not  apply  to  Boston,  ''pivthjildy  lu'cjinsc  its  nnniiicis  in- 
creased so  rajn<lly,  and  it  \v;is  e;n-ly  fonnd  tliiit  nior<*  than 
one  religious  society  would  Ite  ncccssiiry  within  its  limits." 
"Where  jxdl  parishes  wei'c  established  they  were  uiiitVirnily 
eonstitnted  corporations  hy  sjiecial  act  of  incorpoi-at  ion  ; 
sucli  an  act  was  an  enabling  a<t,  ci-eating  a  c()i]»orat inn  jiav- 
ing  perjietiial  succession,  and  capable  of  holding  i-eal  estate 
to  a  limited  amount,  and  in  such  case  the  fee  was  in  the 
corporation,  to  the  use  of  pewholders  and  other  members." 
Attorne^-Geueral  v  Proprietors  of  Meetinghouse  in  Federal 
Street,  Boston,  3  Gray  (Mass.)  1,  .^5,  3S. 

Meetinghouse,  May  Be  Leased.  Where  a  religious  society 
has  no  further  use  for  an  old  meetinghouse,  and  the  land 
on  which  it  stands  abuts  on  a  business  sti-eet,  it  is  not  ultra 
vires  for  the  society  to  let  the  land  to  a  lessee  who  agrees 
to  buy  the  meetinghouse,  and  to  pay  to  such  lessee  or  his 
assignees  on  the  termination  of  the  lease  a  just  and  reason- 
able sum  for  such  buildings  ami  imiu'ovements  as  shall  have 
been  put  npon  the  land  during  the  term  of  the  lease.  Holly- 
wood V  First  Parish,  Brockton,  V.)'2  Mass.  2G9. 

Meetinghouse,  Title  After  Division  of  Town.  A  meeting- 
house for  public  worship,  built  by  a  town  before  it  is 
divided  into  i)arishes,  becomes,  u]»on  such  division,  the 
exclusive  property  of  the  first  i)arish  ;  and  the  use  of  it  for 
many  years  before  the  division,  for  town  nuH'tings  for  muni- 
cipal j»uri)Oses,  gives  the  town  iu>  easement  in  it,  for  siuh 
use  is  presumed  to  have  been  with  the  c(»nsent  of  the  town 
in  its  ])arochial  character,  and  an  adver.se  right  or  an  ease- 
ment cannot  glow  out  of  a  mere  ])ermissive  enjoyment. 
First  Parish,  Medio rd  v  Pratt,  4  Pick.  ( Mass.  i  '222. 

Members,  Liability  for  Debt.  It  is  generally  true  that  an. 
individual  mend)er  of  an  aggregate  cor])oration  is  not  liable 
for  any  debts  or  demands  against  it.     The  towns  and  par- 


PARISH  437 

ishes  in  Massachusetts  are  an  oxcejjtioii.  For  on  sncli  an 
execution  the  body  or  estate  of  any  inli;ihitaiit  may  l)e  taken 
to  satisfy  it.  Chase  v  Merrimack  Bank,  1!>  IMck  (Mass.  i  5(i4. 

Member,  Reimbursement  for  Claim  Paid.  Where  a  judgment 
is  recovered  against  a  member  of  the  i»arish  on  a  chiim 
against  the  parish,  and  the  parishioner  paid  the  judgment, 
he  is  entitled  to  recover  the  amount  from  the  parish.  Keitii 
V  Congregational  Tarisli,  Easton,  21   IMck.   (Mass.  i  2()1. 

Membership.  Under  tlie  Massachusetts  statute  any  per- 
son wishing  to  become  a  member  of  the  parish  must  express 
his  desire  in  writing,  and  the  parish,  by  a  direct  vote  or  by 
an  act  of  an  authorized  agent,  must  accede  to  the  a])plica- 
tion  in  order  to  constitute  him  a  member.  First  Parish, 
Sudbury  v  Stearns,  21  Pick.  (Mass.)  I-IS. 

If  a  person  separating  from  one  religious  society  and 
joining  another  files  with  the  clerk  of  the  society  left  a  cer- 
tificate of  the  fact  under  the  liand  of  tlie  clerk  of  the  society 
which  he  elects  to  join,  it  is  conclusive  evidence  of  his  hav- 
ing ceased  to  be  a  member  of  the  former  society.  Gage  v 
Currier,  4  Pick.  (Mass.)  ?,0J). 

Where  a  member  of  a  religious  society  having,  pursuant 
to  the  Massachusetts  act  of  1811,  chap.  0,  filed  a  certificate 
of  his  membership  with  the  clerk  of  the  town  in  which  he 
lived,  removed  before  the  passing  of  the  act  of  1S2:{,  chap. 
106,  to  another  town,  it  was  held  that  he  was  not  obliged  to 
file  a  certificate  under  tlie  last  statute,  with  the  clerk  of  the 
oldest  religious  society  in  such  town  in  order  to  exemj>t  him- 
self from  taxation  by  that  society;  and  it  was  further  luld 
that  a  tax  levied  on  his  property  by  that  society  might  be 
recovered  back  bj'  an  action  of  money  had  and  received 
brought  against  the  society.  Sumner  v  First  l*;irish.  1  >or- 
chester,   (1820)  4  Pick.   (Mass.)  3(11. 

Minister.  Where  in  a  new  town  a  Congregational  min- 
ister was  settled  as  the  minister  of  the  town,  and  after  his 
death  another  minister  of  the  same  denomination  was 
settled,  this  latter  was  held  to  succee*!  to  ;ill  tlu'  rights  of 
the  former  minister,  and  t(»  he  enlitlcd  to  possession  of  ihe 


IMS        Tin:  cniL  LAW  AXh  Tin:  (in  i:<'ii 

ininislciial  l.-iiids  of  tlic  town;  :i  I  lli()ii<^ii  a  itiajurity  of  llir 
lowii  were  IImmi  of  <)lli('r  (Iciioiniiiat  ions  or*  pci'siiasioiis. 
Jewt'tt  V  Jinri'onjflis,  15  Mass.   H!l. 

Minister,  How  Appointed.  In  Maine  it  was  licM  that  witli- 
(»ut  tlic  express  coik  iirrence  or  assent  of  llu*  town  or  i>arisli 
in  their  eorporate  capacity  no  one  can  become  tlieir  min- 
ister or  be  legally  recognized  as  such.  According  to  the 
ecclesiastical  nsages  ol"  the  count i-y,  the  church  is  generally 
jtermitted  to  nominate  a  minister,  who  may  be  a])prov<Ml  or 
rejected  by  the  parish.  If  the  parish  approve,  a  contrart  of 
settlement  is  then  nuide  between  them  ami  the  minister. 
Bisbee  v  Evans.  4  ^le.  :>74. 

Minister's  Title  to  Property.  When  a  minister  of  a  town  or 
parish  is  seized  of  any  lands  in  right  of  the  town  or  j)arish. 
which  is  the  case  of  all  parsonage  lands,  or  lands  granted 
for  the  use  of  the  ministry  or  of  the  minister  for  the  time 
being,  the  minister  for  this  purpose  is  a  sole  corporation, 
and  holds  the  same  to  himself  and  his  successors.  And  in 
case  of  a  vacancy  in  the  oflBce  the  town  or  parish  is  entitled 
to  the  custody  of  the  same,  and  for  that  ])urpose  may  enter 
and  take  the  profits  till  there  be  a  successor.  Every  town 
is  considered  to  be  a  parish  until  a  separate  parish  be 
formed  within  it;  and  then  the  inhabitants  and  territory 
not  included  in  the  separate  parish,  form  the  first  parish; 
and  the  minister  of  such  first  parish  by  law  holds,  to  him 
and  his  successors,  all  the  estates  and  rights  which  he  held 
as  minister  of  the  town  before  the  separation.  Brunswick  v 
Dunning,  7  Mass.  445. 

Minor,  Taxation.  Personal  property  belonging  to  a  miinu- 
nuist  be  taxed  in  the  parish  in  which  the  guardian  resides, 
although  the  minor  may  reside  in  another  parish  and  at- 
tends jijiblic  worship  there.  Baldwin  v  First  Parish  in 
Fitchburg,  S  Pick.  (Mass.)  494. 

Parishioner.  The  word  "parishioner"  included  not  only 
inhabitants  of  the  parish  but  persons  who  are  occupiers  of 
lands  liable  for  parish  rents  and  duties.  Attorney  General 
V  Parker,  :]  Attk.  (Eng. )  57(). 


PARISH  4;jl» 

Parsonage.  The  fee  of  lands  in  a  town  reserved  for  parson- 
age or  ministerial  lands,  vests  in  the  minister  of  the  town 
when  one  is  settled,  and  the  tennre  cannot  be  changed  by  a 
vote  of  the  town,  even  though  the  minister  assent  thereto. 
And  wliatever  rights  the  town  may  acijuire  in  relation  to 
the  use  or  enjoyment  of  the  protits  must  be  under  him  and 
in  subordination  to  his  legal  title.  Inhabitants  of  Bucks- 
port  V  Spofford.  12  Me.  487. 

Where  property  was  conveyed  to  a  town  for  parsonage 
purposes  the  ministers  of  the  town  were  entitled  to  the  use 
of  the  pro])erty  and  became  seized  successively,  in  i-ight  of 
their  parish.  A  conveyance  by  the  i)arish  to  a  minister  in 
fee,  for  a  valuable  consideration,  was  held  void  for  the  rea- 
son that  the  property  was  conveyed  to  the  i)arish  in  trust. 
The  parish  (in  this  instance  the  town)  had  not  the  fee  of 
the  land,  and  therefore  could  not  convey  it.  Austin  v 
Thomas,  14  Mass.  :«S. 

Poll  Parish.  Poll  parishes  are  voluntary,  and  when  unre- 
strained by  their  articles  of  association,  or  h\  their  act  of 
incor})oration,  if  incorporated,  are,  of  course,  fully  at  liberty 
to  prescribe  terms  of  membership  from  time  to  time,  which 
terms  will  be  of  binding  authority  on  all  connected  with  the 
l)arish,  and  they  may  make  by-laws  declaring  what  shall 
constitute  membershij),  and  what  shall  operate  to  cause  a 
forfeiture  of  membershij).  and  such  by-laws  may  as  well 
apply  to  ])resent  as  to  future  members.  Taylor  v  Edson, 
4  Cush.  (  Mass. )  522. 

Powers.  A  parish  has  no  authority  to  grant  moneys 
except  for  setlling  ministci-s  and  building  houses  of  ](iil)lic 
worship,  and  for  ])urposes  necessarily  connecte<l  with  those 
objects.    Bangs  v  Snow,  1  Mass.  181. 

A  i)arish  may  ])rovide  for  religious  instruction  by  the 
erection  of  meetinghouses  and  the  supi)or(  of  ministers. 
Alna,  Inhabitants  of,  v  Plummer,  3  Me.  88. 

Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  Defined.  A  pai-ish  imlndes  the 
individuals  who  nssocjatc  thcnisclvcs  under  the  articles  of 
incorporation,  and,   in   their   I'diniMl   applicntiou   foi'  ;i(hiiis- 


110        'iMii:  ('i\ii.  LAW  ANh  Till':  cm  i:<'ii 

sioii.  on  llicir  pledge  of  coiiloniiily  to  tlic  (lioccsjiii  ;iinl  ;i<*ii- 
cinl  l('<;isl;i(i()ii  of  llic  cluircli,  iirc  i<M('iv(Ml  into  nnion  with 
the  (lioccsan  convention.  Bird  v  St.  Mark'.s  (Jhurch,  Water- 
loo, (J2  la.  507. 

Roman  Catholic.  Tciritorial  areas  descrilxMl  in  the  nonicn- 
clalnre  of  the  Konian  Catholic  (Minrch  as  jtarishcs,  are  not 
recognized  by  the  law  as  corporate  or  political  entities;  and 
if  they  were  snch,  the  chni-cli  could  not  legislate  concerning 
them.    jVfcEntee  v  Bonacnni,  (id  Xeb.  (>51. 

Taxation.  Parish  taxes  can  be  assessed  only  on  the  polls 
and  property  of  niend)ers  of  the  j)arish.  A  tax  levied  on 
unimproved  i)roperty  owned  by  a  nonresident  was,  there- 
fore, held  to  be  invalid.    Dall  v  Kimball,  6  Me.  171. 

The  erection  of  a  second  j)arish  in  a  town  does  not  pre- 
vent the  town  authorities  from  assessing  parish  taxes. 
Ashby  V  Wellington,  S  Tick.  (Mass.)  524. 

Persons  assessed  for  the  sui)port  of  public  worship  in  a 
parish,  who  have  a  right  to  have  their  moneys  i)aid  over  to 
a  minister  other  than  the  parish  minister,  must  notify  the 
parish  of  their  desire  to  have  their  moneys  so  i)aid  over,  and 
the  minister  must  denuind  the  moneys  within  a  reasonable 
time  after  the  assessment  is  made ;  and  a  year  from  making 
such  assessment  is  a  reasonable  time,  but  in  particular  cases 
the  time  may  be  extended. 

A  person  leaving  the  society  in  which  the  itarish  worship, 
and  honestly  and  in  good  faith  joining  one  of  another  reli- 
gious denomination,  is  entitled  to  have  his  money  paid  over 
to  the  teacher  on  Avhose  instruction  he  attends,  although 
he  may  have  no  conscientious  scruples  on  the  subject. 
Montague  v  Inhabitants  First  Parish  in  l)edham.  1  Mass. 
200. 

Where  the  assessors  of  a  religious  society  assess  a  tax 
on  a  person  who  is  not  a  member  they  are  liable  to  an  action 
of  trespass;  for  they  do  not  come  within  the  provision  in  St. 
1823,  chap.  138,  s.  5,  that  in  certain  cases  they  shall  be 
responsible  only  for  their  own  integrity  and  fidelity.  Gage 
v  Currier,  4  Pick.  (Mass.)  31)1). 


PARSONAGE 

Massachusetts  rule,  441. 
Ministers'  occupancy,  441. 
Town  land,  442. 
Trust  for,  when  invalid,  443. 
Use,  443. 

Massachusetts  Rule.  In  Massachusetts  a  iiiiiiister  holds 
j)ai"soiia<;e  lands  in  lee  simple  in  the  rigiit  of  the  i)arish  nv 
church,  and,  therefore,  on  his  resignation,  dcinivation.  or 
death,  the  fee  is  in  abeyance  until  there  be  a  successor.  Dur- 
ing a  vacancy  the  parisli  or  cliurch  have  the  custody,  and 
are  entitled  to  the  profits  of  the  parsonage.  It  llie  minister 
alien  with  tlie  assent  of  his  ]»arisli,  or  of  the  vestry  of  tlie 
church,  the  alienation  will  bind  the  successor;  if  withoni 
such  assent,  it  will  be  valid  no  longer  than  he  continues 
minister.  An  alienation  of  tlie  jiarsonage  by  the  town,  dis- 
trict, ijrecinct,  or  vestry  is  void;  for  if  there  be  a  minister, 
the  fee  is  in  him  ;  or  if  there  be  a  vacancy,  the  fee  is  in  abcy 
a  nee.     Weston  v  Hunt,  2  ^fass.  500. 

Ministers'  Occupancy.  The  society  employed  a  jtastor  tor  a 
cash  salary,  and  also  the  use  of  the  parsonage.  He  took  pos- 
session of  tlie  ])ars()nage  in  1S70,  and  occupied  it  until  his 
death.  In  1877  the  society  was  divided,  and  two  new  so- 
cieties were  organized,  one  kiu)wn  as  the  East  Norway  Lake 
and  the  othci-  as  the  West  Norway  Lake  Norwegian  Evangel- 
ical Lutheran  Society,  and  the  old  society  was  practically 
abandoned  except  for  closing  u];  its  alVairs  und  disposing 
of  its  pro])<M-ty.  The  minister  with  whom  llie  contract  was 
made  continued  to  occipy  the  parsonage  alter  the  division, 
serving  both  societies.  After  tlu-  ministei-'s  death  in  1SS."» 
his  jtersonal  i-ejtresetitatives  had  no  title  or  interest  in  the 
I)arsonage.    The  contract  did  not  create  the  relation  of  land- 

441 


U2       Tin:  ('i\  II.  LAW  AXi>  Trii-:  ciinicii 

lord  :iii<l  tcimiil.  IOjisI  Norwiiy  I-.iik<'  Xorwcj^inii  ICviiiigcl- 
icjil  LnllKTiiii  Clmrcli  v  I-'roislie,  o7  Minn.  UT. 

A  minister  in  llic  McllKxlist  l^piscopiil  ('lini'cli  who  occii- 
pies  llic  pjirsoniij^c  rnniislicd  l>y  tlic  lo<"il  society  is  not  ;i 
sei-v:inl  of  llie  trustees  nor  of  the  society  in  the  seiis(!  that 
he  conhl  he  ti-e;ite(l  Jis  ;i  t resjcissei-  on  his  refnsjil  to  hMve  it. 

'i'lie  pliiintitf,  a  nienihei-  of  the  Xewai-k  ('onference,  had 
Iteen  appointed  ]»i-eachei'  at  S|»rin;i  X'alley.  and  while  ofhciat- 
inj;'  in  that  cajtacity  o<-cnpied  the  i»arsona;:;e  provichMl  l)y 
the  local  society.  In  -Tanuaiy.  iSSti,  he  was  sns]»ended 
from  all  ministeiial  and  chni'ch  |>i-iviloj;es.  The  trustees 
of  the  h»cal  society  ejected  the  pastoi-  from  the  parsonajie. 
In  an  action  hy  the  pastor  aj'ainst  the  trustees,  allepnj^  an 
assault  and  forcible  exclusion  of  himself  from  the  house 
and  the  conversion  of  his  jjoods,  it  was  held  that  the  min- 
ister was  in  lawful  possession  of  the  parsonage,  and  the  use 
of  force  by  the  trustees  to  expel  him  from  the  house  was 
without  justification.    Bristor  v  Burr,  120  N.  Y.  427. 

Town  Land.  The  proprietors  of  a  new  township  appro- 
priated a  lot  of  land  for  a  parsonage,  at  the  same  time  vot- 
ing that  they  would  endeavor  that  a  Congregational  min- 
ister should  be  settled  in  the  town.  Afterward  a  Congrega- 
tional society  was  incorporated  in  the  town  as  a  poll  parish. 
It  was  held  that  the  said  society  was  not  entitled  to  the 
use  of  such  parsonage,  but  that  the  same  remained  to  the 
first  parish,  whether  of  the  Congregational  order  or  not. 
First  Parish,  Shapleigh  v  Oilman,  1:1  Mass.  100. 

A  town,  owning  land  in  fee,  and  managing  its  parochial 
affairs  as  a  municipal  corporation,  voted  in  1712  to  fence  in 
three  and  a  half  acres  for  the  use  of  the  ministry.  The  next 
year  they  voted  to  take  uj)  and  fence  \u  four  acres  in  lieu  of 
the  three  and  a  half  acres.  From  that  time  they  exchanged, 
sold,  leased,  or  managed  themselves  the  lands  which  they 
called  ministerial,  just  as  they  pleased,  until  1741,  when 
they  voted  that  certain  lands,  including  the  parcel  of  four 
acres,  should  belong  to  the  first  ])arish.  In  1777  the  tirst 
parish  conveyed  this  parcel  to  an  individual.     It  was  held 


FAR  NONAGE  \\:\ 

that  this  parcel  was  not  technically  parsonage  laiid.  it  not 
being  plainly  shown  to  be  the  intent  of  the  town  that  it 
should  go  to  the  ministers  of  the  ])arish  in  succession,  and 
so  the  conveyance  made  by  the  parish  was  valid.  Kmerson 
V  Wiley,  10  Tick.  (Mass.)  317. 

Trust  for,  When  Invalid.  In  Carskadon  v  Torreyson.  IT 
W.  ^'a.  4o,  it  was  held  that  a  conveyanie  of  i)roper1y  lo 
trustees,  intended  for  a  parsonage,  for  the  use  of  the  min- 
isters of  the  ^Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Sonili 
Branch  Circuit,  >\'cst  Virginia,  was  void  for  parsonage  jnir- 
poses,  unless  for  the  benefit  of  a  particular  local  congrega- 
tion. In  this  instance  the  circuit  was  compose<l  of  several 
congregations,  an<l  it  could  not  be  determined  which  congi-e- 
gation  was  intended  as  a  beneficiary  of  the  trust. 

Use.  The  manse  or  i)arsonage  house  owne<l  by  a  religions 
society  stands  upon  a  looting  different  froni  that  of  a  meet- 
inghouse. There  is  no  right  of  use  in  common  in  the  par- 
sonage. It  is  not  a  sacred  building  like  a  church  edilice, 
but  is,  properly  sjteaking,  an  endowment  or  source  of  i)e- 
cuniary  revenue  to  aid  in  su])port  of  the  worship  in  the 
church  property.  Its  use  is  not  spiritual  but  temporal. 
Though  it  is  ordinarily  used  as  a  residence  for  the  pasior, 
there  is  nothing  in  its  character  or  ownership  to  prevent  its 
being  used  for  other  j)urposes  as  circumstances  may  render 
it  i)rofitable  or  beneficial.  Everett  v  First  Presbyterian 
Church,  53  N.  J.  P^q.  500. 


PARTICULAR  BAPTIST  CHURCH 

Particular  Baptists,  444. 

Particular  Baptists.  In  171»7  llie  trustees  of  the  town  con- 
\<'ve(l  land  to  the  rarticular  Baptist  Chureli.  in  ISOO  there 
was  a  union  between  the  Particular  and  Separate  Baptists 
in  Kentucky  under  the  denomination  of  United  Baptists. 
Some  thirty  or  thirty-tive  years  afterward  the  church 
known  as  the  Reformed  Church  was  or«!;anized,  composed 
in  part  of  persons  who  had  seceded  from  the  Ba])tist  Churcli. 
By  some  arrangement  the  new  church  occupied  the  hou.se 
of  worship  used  by  the  original  church.  A  controversy  arose 
over  the  right  to  use  the  church  building,  the  old  society 
claiming  the  exclusive  right  to  use  it,  and  tinalh'  i)revente<l 
the  new  society  from  occupying  it.  The  old  society  was  not 
incorporated,  and  it  was  held  that  the  title  which  vested 
in  the  original  trustees  in  the  conveyance  from  the  town  did 
not  pass  to  the  officers  of  the  society,  and  the  officers  did  not 
have  the  legal  title ;  but  as  officers  of  the  societs'  they  were 
entitled  to,  maintain  an  action  to  establish  the  right  to  the 
possession  of  the  property.  The  change  of  name  from  Par- 
ticular to  the  United  Baptist  Church  was  not  a  change  in 
fact  in  the  society,  which  continued  under  the  original  or- 
ganization, though  under  a  change  of  name.  The  Reforme<l 
(^luircli  had  no  right  to  even  a  i)artial  use  of  the  church 
Itnilding.  It  was  an  entirely  distinct  body  of  Christians. 
Cahill  v  Bigger,  S  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  211. 


444 


PARTITION 

Joint  church  ownership,  445. 

Joint  Church  Ownership.  In  Swoyer  v  Sehallei-,  KJ  I*:i.  Co. 
Ct.  ovKJ,  it  was  lield  lliat  the  court  had  no  jurisdiction  to 
decree  partition  of  chnrili  property'  owned  in  coumion  bv 
two  conffregations. 


445 


PEWS 

Historical  notr,  446. 

Assossincnl  for  cxponsos,  447. 

Chanpinn,  injunction  refused,  447. 

Church  used  for  general  purposes,  447. 

Distribution,  447. 

Disturbing  possession,  448. 

Easement,  449. 

JOnglish  custom,  453. 

Execution,  sale,  454. 

Forfeiture,  454. 

Incorporeal  hereditament,  456. 

Indemnity  for  loss,  455. 

Locking  pew,  457. 

Loose  bench,  457. 

Louisiana  rule,  457. 

Mandamus,  457. 

Ma,ssachus(>tts  rule,  457. 

New  building,  458. 

New  pew,  459. 

Parish  property,  460. 

Perpetual  lease,  460. 

Pewholders'  corporate  rights,  460. 

Possession,  mandamus,  460. 

Prescription,  460. 

Presimiption,  461. 

Real  estate,  461. 

Rent,  character  of  debt,  462. 

Rent,  when  preferred  debt,  462. 

Repairs,  462. 

Roman  Cathohc,  463. 

Sale  of  property,  464. 

Sale,  464. 

Taxation,  464. 

Termination  of  right,  465. 

Title,  465. 

Title,  transferrable,  466. 

Trespass,  466. 

Historical  Note.     Tews  constitute  a   subject   of  peculiar 
owiK'iship.      They    are    tletined    to    be    inclosed    seats    in 

446 


PEWS  447 

churches,  and  it  is  said  that,  according  to  modern  use  and 
idea,  they  were  not  known  until  long  after  the  Reformation, 
and  that  inclosed  pews  were  not  in  general  use  before  the 
middle  of  the  seventeenUi  century,  being  for  a  long  time 
confined  to  the  family  of  the  patron.  In  lOngland  the  right 
of  pro])erty  in  a  jiew  is  a  mere  easement  or  incorporeal  right, 
an<l  hence  the  ICnglish  doctrine  that  case  only  will  lie  for 
the  disturbance  of  the  occupant.  O'Hear  v  De  Goesbriand, 
.T{  Vt.  r>!>:{. 

Assessment  for  Expenses.  A  pewholdiM-  who  bought  a  pew 
at  i)ublic  auction  fi-ee  of  rent  was  held  not  ii.d)le  afterward 
on  an  assessment  for  current  exi>enses.  Trustees  1st  Presby, 
Cong.  Hebron  v  Qnakeidtnsh,  10  .lohns  (N.  Y. )  217. 

Changing,  Injunction  Refused.  In  Solomon  v  Congregation 
B'Nai  .Jeshnrun,  4!)  Uow.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  2(;;{,  the  court  refused 
an  injunction  to  restrain  the  church  authorities  from  mak- 
ing alterations  and  repairs  in  the  church  edifice  which  would 
have  the  elfect  of  changing  the  pews  and  the  seating  arrange- 
ments of  the  society. 

Church  Used  for  General  Purposes.  In  Jackson  v  Kounse- 
ville,  5  Mete.  (Mass.)  127,  the  court  said  it  had  be<Mi  the 
practice  in  various  ])arts  of  the  State,  esj)ecially  in  Boston, 
for  religious  societies  to  lend  the  use  of  their  houses  to  the 
government,  for  the  annual  election  sermon,  an<l  to  vai'ious 
societies  and  philanthropic  associations,  to  hold  meetings, 
for  various  ])urposes;  and  ui)on  s\u'h  occasions  it  has  been 
usual  for  the  body  or  association  to  whom  the  house  is  lent 
to  control  the  use  of  the  ])ews,  without  regai'd  to  the  par- 
ticular owners. 

Distribution.  In  Reynolds  v  Monkton,  2  M.  and  Rob. 
(lOng. )  oS4,  it  was  held  that  the  churchwardens  h;i\('  a  dis- 
cretionary power  to  ai)|)ropriate  the  ]>ews  in  tiic  «iiur«h 
among  the  parishioners,  and  may  rcnioNc  persons  intinding 
on  seats  already  appropriated. 

The  trustees  of  a  Free  Church  hnve  the  right  to  conli-ol 
the  places  where  persons  should  sit.  in  liie  absence  of  any 
proof  that  by  usage  or  otheiwise  rigiits   were  accpiired   to 


44.S  Tin:  ("l\IL   l>A\V  AM)  '11 1 1:  rin   KCH 

special  scats,  and  thai  a  iicrson  ii|i(iii  I'diisin^  to  <liaiij;(;  liis 
seat  may  be  I'ofcihly  removed  ri(»iii  I  lie  seal  lie  is  so  oceiijiy 
\]\rr-     Sheldon  v  \'ail,  L'S  Ilun   (  \.  \.)  '.'>~)l. 

In  I'>ii}i;land  pews  are  al(o<^elhei-  a  iiialter  ot  ecclesiastieal 
ref^ulation.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  di n i(  1 1 wardens  to  distrib- 
ute them  in  the  most  convenient  way  so  as  to  give  to  eacli 
jtaiishioner  a  seat.  In  this  country  we  have  no  parish 
chnrches.  With  us  they  are  corporations  aggregate,  made 
so  by  law.  The  lenipoi'al  concerns  are  managed  by  trustees, 
who  have  power  to  dispose  of  the  pews  by  sale  and  by  letting 
them  out  to  hire,  fixing  the  amount  of  rent  so  as  to  produce 
a  reventu'.  The  [)nrchase  of  a  ]>ew  gives  a  more  permanent 
right  than  a  mere  hiring.  A  purchaser,  as  well  as  a  hirer, 
pays  a  rent  or  assessment  for  the  support  of  the  establish- 
ment, but  still  the  purchaser  has  a  property  which  is  trans- 
missible. The  purchaser  of  the  pew  has  no  right  or  inter- 
est in  the  soil.  His  possession  is  not  a  possession  of  real 
estate.  The  trustees  may  at  any  time  ])ull  down  or  remove 
the  building.  In  case  of  a  sale  and  the  erection  of  a  new 
building  the  right  of  a  pewholder  in  the  old  building  is 
transferred  to  the  new  building.  Matter  of  Brick  Presby- 
terian (Minrch,  :>  Edw.  Ch.  (X.  Y.)  155. 

Disturbing  Possession.  The  owner  of  a  pew  in  a  church  has 
an  exclusive  right  to  its  })ossession  and  enjoyment  for  the 
purposes  of  public  worship,  and  may  maintain  an  action 
for  disturbing  his  possession,  even  against  the  society  or 
l»erson  in  whom  the  title  to  the  land  and  building  is  vested. 
O'liear  v  De  Goesbriand,  33  Vt.  593. 

The  pewholders,  in  the  ordinary  cases  of  meetinghouses  or 
churches  built  by  incorporations  under  the  statute,  have 
only  a  right  of  occupancy  in  their  seats,  subject  to  supe- 
rior rights  of  the  society  owning  the  pew.  Trespass  is  the 
proper  remedy  for  a  disturbance  of  the  pew-owner's  right. 
A  pew  cannot  be  sold  on  an  assessment  unless  the  shares  are 
defined,  are  regularly  assessed,  and  proceedings  are  in  con- 
formity with  the  constitution  and  by-laws  of  the  society. 
Terrin  v  Granger,  33  Vt.  101. 


PEWS  449 

A  persou  liad  ji  prescriptive  ri^hl  to  a  seat  in  a  clnu-cli. 
and  being  disturbed,  niiglit  sue  in  a  spiritual  court  to  have 
his  possession  quieted.  Jacob  v  Dallow,  '2  Salk.  (Eng. ) 
551. 

Easement.  A  i)ewholder's  right  of  occujjancj^  is  subject 
to  the  riglit  of  the  meetinghouse  proprietors  to  sell  the 
church  edifice  and  rebuild  elsewliere.  First  Presbyterian 
Society  of  Antrim  v  Bass,  C8  N.  H.  33:{. 

Where  the  i)ews  in  a  church  have  been  purdiased  and  a 
title  given  to  the  purchaser  he  has  but  a  cpialilied  interest. 
His  right  is  subject  to  that  of  the  trustees  or  owners  of  the 
church,  who  have  the  right  to  take  down,  rebuild,  or  remove 
the  church  for  the  ])urj>ose  of  more  convenient  worship,  with- 
out making  any  comj)ensatioii  to  the  pewholders  for  the 
temporary  interru])tion.  Van  Houten  v  First  RefornuMl 
Dutch  Ch.  17  N.  J.  Eq.  130.  See  also  Van  Horn  v  Talina.ue, 
8  N.  J.  Eq.  108. 

A  pewholder  has  an  easement  in  and  not  a  title  to  the 
freehold.  He  has  a  proj>erty  in  his  pew  and  a  right  to  its 
exclusive  i^ossession.  A  pewholder  has  certain  privileges  by 
reason  of  his  ownership,  such  as  i>assing  through  the  aisles, 
being  addressed  from  the  i)ulj)it,  etc.  He  may  own  a  j)ew 
and  yet  not  be  a  member  of  the  parish  corporation.  First 
Baptist  Society,  Leeds  v  Grant,  50  Me.  245. 

A  house  of  worshi})  having  been  built  on  land  owned  by 
the  society,  it  was  held  that  the  corjxuatioii  and  not  the 
members  of  it  became  the  owner  of  the  ])ropei'ty,  and  that 
jx'wholders  belonging  to  another  denomination  could  not 
exercise  any  authority  in  the  managenuMit  and  conti-ol  of 
the  property.  A  pewhohler's  right  is  only  an  easenuMit. 
First  Baptist  Society  of  Leeds  v  (Jrant,  5!)  Me.  245. 

The  grant  of  a  j»ew  in  ]»er|»etuity  <loes  not  give  to  the 
owner  of  land  any  fee.  The  grantee  is  only  entitled  to  the 
use  of  the  pew  for  the  ]»urpose  of  sitting  therein  during 
divine  service.  But  the  owner  of  the  pew  may  nniinlain 
case,  trespass  or  ejectment,  according  to  tlie  circumstances, 
if  he  is  improperly  disturbed  in  the  legitimate  exercise  of 


tno        Tin:  cixii.  law  and  iiii:  ciirKcii 

his  l«'^;il  ri^lit  to  use  liis  pew  lor  tli:it  |»in|»(»s«'.  Ii;i|)tist: 
(Mmnli.  Hinll<n«l  v  Willicn'Il,  ::  r;iij;«'  (Mi.  i  \.  V.  i  lilx;. 

A  person  may  have  the  iiier-e  possessory  ri^ht  in  a  j)e\v, 
Wilkinson  v  Moss,  2  I^ee  (Kiif;.  i    117. 

I'ewlioMeT's  in  a  chur*!!  hnildinjf  have  only  a  (pialitied  and 
iisuriucluary  right  in  their  pews,  snhject  to  the  ri}j;ht  of  the 
reli<jious  society  to  remodel  them,  and  to  alter  the  internal 
structure  of  the  huildini;,  oi-  enlarge  or  i-emove  it,  or  sell 
it  in  order  to  build  anew.  Sohier  v  Trinity  Church,  10!) 
Mass,  1. 

A  pewholder  acquires  only  a  right  of  occupancy  for  wor- 
ship in  connection  with  the  services  prescribed  by  the  rules 
of  the  church.  He  does  not  acquire  an  absolute  title,  but 
his  interest  is  subordinate  to  the  general  right  of  the  cor- 
poration to  alter,  repair,  rebuild,  or  .sell  the  edifice.  Vor- 
hees  V  l*resbyterian  Church  of  Amsterdam,  8  Bjirb.  ( N.  Y.  i 
135,  also  17  Barb.  (N.  Y. )  103. 

A  pewholder  had  only  the  right  to  occupy  a  pew  for  the 
purpose  of  worship.  The  title  of  the  property  remains  in 
the  corporation  and  the  i)ewholder  cannot  compel  it  to 
maintain  divine  service,  nor  even  to  open  the  house  for  that 
purpose;  and  tlie  building  may  be  abandoned  without  sub- 
jecting the  society  to  any  liability  as  against  a  pewholder. 
Matter  of  Saugerties  Keformed  Dutch  Ch.,  16  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
239. 

A  pewholder  does  not  acquire  absolute  title  to  the  prop- 
erty, but  he  acquires  only  the  right  to  use  the  pew  for  the 
purpose  of  sitting  therein  during  services.  A  pew-owner  has 
no  title  to  the  building  or  any  i)art  of  it,  nor  to  the  soil  on 
which  it  stands,  and  the  society  nuiy  at  their  pleasure  alter 
the  structure  and  may  even  destroy  the  pew.  For  this  alter- 
ation or  destruction  of  the  pew  the  owner  has  no  redress 
and  is  not  entitled  to  any  comj)ensation  if  the  change  was 
made  from  necessity' ;  but  otherwise  if  the  change  was  made 
as  a  mere  matter  of  convenience  or  expediency.  Cooper  v 
Presby.  Ch.  of  Sandy  Hill,  32  Barb.  (N.  Y.  i  222. 

I'urchaser  acquires  only  the  right  to  use  the  i)ew  during 


PEWS  451 

divine  service,  and  does  not  obtain  the  absolute  title.  Hinde 
V  Choi'lton,  15  Law  Times  N.  S.  (Enji;. )  472. 

The  right  of  a  pew  gives  no  right  to  the  soil.  It  gives 
only  limited  estate.  The  owner  may  use  the  property  as  a 
pew  but  he  has  not  an  unliniitt'd  absolute  right.  He  cannot 
use  it  lawfully  lor  purposes  incompatible  with  its  nature. 
Heeney  v  St.  Peter's  Ch.  2  Edw.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  008. 

The  right  of  a  pewhohler  to  a  pew  in  a  meetinghouse  is 
subordinate  to  the  rights  of  the  owners  of  the  house.  He 
has  an  exclusive  right  to  occupy  his  pew  when  the  house  is 
used  for  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  erected,  but  he  can- 
not convert  his  pew  to  other  uses  not  contemplated.  If  the 
house  is  taken  down  as  a  nmtter  of  convenience  or  taste  by 
the  owners  thereof,  the  owner  of  the  ]>ew  is  entitled  to  com- 
pensation; but  if  the  house  is  taken  down  as  a  matter  of 
necessity,  and  because  it  has  become  ruinous  and  wholly 
unfit  for  the  ])urposes  for  which  it  was  erected,  the  owners 
of  the  house  are  not  liable  to  make  any  compensation  to  tlie 
separate  pewholders,  but  nmy  take  the  avails  of  the  mate- 
rials of  which  the  house  is  built  for  the  purpose  of  erecting 
another  house  in  its  j)lace. 

The  owner  of  a  pew  in  a  meetinghouse  may  sustain  an 
action  of  trespass  on  the  case  against  one  wlio  nnlawfnlly 
disturbs  him  in  the  po.ssession  of  his  pew.  But  he  holds 
his  pew  subject  to  the  right  of  the  owners  of  the  house  to 
take  down  and  rebuild  the  house,  in  case  of  necessity. 
without  making  him  compensation.  Kellogg  v  Dickinson, 
18  Vt.  26G. 

Pew-owners  have  merely  a  ([ualified  and  usnfrnclnary 
right  in  their  pews,  subject  to  the  right  of  the  society  to 
reuKxlel  them  and  to  alter  the  internal  strnctnre  ot  the 
bnihling,  or  enlai'ge  or  remove  it,  or  sell  tiie  editice  antl  re- 
build elsewhere.  Colby  v  Northlield  and  Tilton  Congrega- 
tional Society,  (J.'J  N.  H.  «.*}. 

A  j)ew  ac(piired  from  a  town  while  it  was  acting  paro- 
chially became  the  jnoperty  of  the  pewhohler.  Such  i>rop 
erty,  however,  is  not  absolute,  but  (pudilied,  and  is  subject  to 


451'  Tin:  r|\|L   LAW  AM)  'I'lli:  (III   IMIi 

i\  ri,ulil  of  liic  palish  lo  jmiII  down  IIk*  clnircli  ami  Itiiiid  :iii- 
otiicr.  \iy  (he  jk  t  of  IcSlT  tlu!  pr<)|)ii('t()rH  of  tlu;  incctiiij;- 
boiise  were  given  jK)wer  to  tiik('  (lowii  any  i)ew  when  (leeiiie<l 
necessary  for  the  purpose  of  rej>airin{j;  or  rebuilding  the 
house.     Daniel  v  AVood,  1    Pick.   (Mass.)    102. 

In  JOngland,  where  by  si)ecial  acts  a  local  society  was 
incorporated  and  the  pewholders  were  declared  to  possess  a 
fee  siini)le  lille  in  the  pews,  it  Avas  held  that  the  i)roj)rietor 
of  a  pew  di<l  not  acquire  such  a  freehold  interest  in  any  por- 
tion of  the  soil  of  the  church  as  to  entitle  him  to  a  vote  for 
the  county,  but  merely  an  easement  or  qualified  right  to  the 
occupation  and  enjoyment  of  the  pew  for  the  purpose  of 
attending  the  services  of  the  church.  Brumtitt  v  Roberts, 
L.  K.  5  Com.  VI.  (Eng.)  224. 

An  absolute  deed  of  a  church  pew  in  perpetuity  is 
only  the  conveyance  of  the  right  to  the  use  of  the  pew  during 
divine  service  in  the  nature  of  a  leasehold  estate,  and  gives 
the  holder  no  claim  that  the  relative  situation  of  the  inter- 
nal parts  of  the  church  shall  not  be  altered,  nor  that  the 
church  shall  remain  unaltered  unless  damages  shall  be  paid 
or  secured.  Accordingly,  where  the  church  authorities  added 
new  pews  in  front  of  the  plaintiff's  pew,  and  removed  the 
pulpit  and  chancel  some  sixteen  feet  farther  off,  it  was  held 
that  the  trustees  had  power  to  make  such  an  enlargement, 
and  the  plaintiff  was  not  entitled  to  an  injunction  restrain- 
ing it.  Bronson  v  St.  Peter's  Church,  Auburn,  7  N.  Y.  Leg. 
Obs.  3G1. 

The  right  of  a  pew-owner  is  a  right  to  the  use  of  the 
pew  during  divine  service.  His  right  is  subject  to  the  right 
of  the  owners  of  the  house  to  take  down,  rebuild,  or  remove 
the  house  for  the  purpose  of  more  convenient  worship.  The 
pew-owners  as  such  do  not  constitute  the  corporation  and 
have  no  voice  or  vote  in  the  management  of  its  affairs.  No 
pew-owner  can  become  a  member  against  his  consent ;  and 
if  a  member,  he  does  not  lose  his  property  in  his  pew  by 
separating  from  the  society.  Pew-owners  cannot  decide 
what  doctrine  shall  be  preached,  except  where  the  society  is 


PEWS  45:5 

composed  of  pew-owners  only.  Trinitarian  Congregational 
Society,  Francestown  v  Union  Congregational  Society, 
Francestown,  61  N.  H.  .384. 

"A  pewh older,  or  owner,  has  no  legal  interest  in  the 
church  edifice,  or  in  the  land  upon  which  it  stands.  The 
title  to  it,  and  the  right  in  the  land,  whatever  that  right 
may  be,  is  in  the  corporation,  and  the  possession  is  in  the 
trustees."  A  pew-owner  has  only  the  right  to  occupy  the 
pew  during  divine  worship,  which  is  a  cpialitied  interest  and 
one  necessarily  limited  in  point  of  time.  Abernethy  v  So- 
ciety of  the  Church  of  the  Puritans,  3  Daly,  (N.  Y.)  1. 

A  pewholder  has  only  the  right  to  occupy  it  during 
divine  services,  and  for  no  other  purpose.  This  right  is  sub- 
ordinate to  the  power  of  the  corporation  to  remodel  the 
building  or  to  sell  it,  on  deciding  to  remove.  Erwin  v  Elurd, 
13  Abb.  N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  91. 

l*roprietors  Union  Meetinghouse  v  Rowell,  (»(>  Me.  400  fol- 
lowing First  Baptist  Society  in  Leeds  v  Grant,  50  Me.  245, 
it  was  held  that  pewholders  have  only  an  easement,  and  that 
the  title  to  the  church  property  is  in  the  proprietors. 

Pews  in  the  society's  church  were  held  not  subject  to  con- 
vcA'ance  in  fee  by  the  society,  and  pewholders  have  only  the 
right  of  occupancy.  Montgomery  v  Johnson,  0  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  232. 

The  meetinghouse  was  erected  by  the  town  in  ITIH.  In 
1839  the  town  permitted  the  Congregational  society  to  malce 
alterations  in  the  building  so  as  to  make  an  upper  and  lower 
floor,  and  in  considerati<>n  of  this  action  by  the  churcli  it 
was  to  have  exclusive  possession  of  and  the  right  to  control 
the  up])er  room  as  an  audience  room  to  be  used  for  the  pui'- 
pose  of  public  worshi|».  IVws  having  been  const im  led  and 
sold,  it  was  held  that  the  owner  of  a  pew  licld  it  subject  to 
the  right  of  the  society  to  make  alterations  and  repairs  on 
tendering  compensation.    .lones  v  Towne,  5S  N.  II.  4(12. 

English  Custom.  In  l^ngland  befoi-e  llie  Keformation  the 
body  <tf  (lie  chnrcli  was  common  to  all  parishioners.  After 
the  Reformation   a   jtraclice  aro.se  of  as.signing  particular 


4M        Tiir:  ('i\iL  I, AW  ANh  'riir;  (Imkcii 

scjils  lo  iii<li\  iiliijils.  11iis  ;issiLjiiiii»'iil  of  scjits  \v;is  iikmIc  \)y 
the  ordiiijiry,  by  ii  laciilly  wliidi  \v;is  ;i  mere  lii-eiise,  and 
was  personal  to  tlie  licensee,  and  all  disputes  coneerning  it 
were  deterniitied  in  the  spiritual  couits.  ICvery  parishioner 
has  a  right  to  a  seat  in  the  }>arish  church  hut  not  to  a  pew. 
By  later  custom  churchwardens  had  su])<'rvision  and  control 
of  the  (piestions  relating  to  the  assi<;nnient  of  pews,  being 
presumed  to  act  under  the  direction  of  the  ordinary.  \a\- 
ingston  v  Trinity  Church,  Trenton,  45  X.  J.  L.  li.'JO. 

Execution,  Sale.  Pews  which  had  not  been  sold  by  the  cor- 
poration were  sold  on  an  execution  issued  on  a  judgment 
against  the  corporation  for  the  amount  due  on  certain 
bonds.  By  an  amendment  of  the  charter  of  the  church, 
passed  in  1842,  it  was  declared  that  the  purchasers  of  pews 
in  fee  simple  should  hold  them  forever  free  from  any  liability 
for  debts,  and  that  they  should  never  be  suscei)tible  of  any 
species  of  mortgage,  and  that  the  sale  of  such  pews  need  not 
be  recorded.  The  j)ews  Avere,  therefore,  a  distinct  property, 
and  when  owned  by  an  individual,  not  liable  to  be  seized 
for  his  debts.  They  are  quite  distinct  from  the  church  and 
the  ground  on  which  it  stands.  City  Bank.  New  Orleans  v 
Mclntyre.  8  Rob.  Re.  (La.)  407. 

Forfeiture.  A  parish  on  October  1,  1828,  sold  the  pews  in 
their  meetinghouse  on  the  following  conditions:  ''The  sum 
bid  for  choice,  and  one  third  of  the  appraised  value  shall  be 
paid  in  cash,  one  third  part  in  one  year,  and  the  residue  in 
two  years,  with  interest.  The  first  payment  to  be  forfeited  if 
the  other  j)ayments  are  not  made  agreeably  to  the  above 
conditions."  The  defendant  purchased  a  pew,  made  the 
first  payment,  entered  into  possession,  and  continued  in  pos- 
session until  October,  1831,  but  made  no  further  payments. 
It  was  held  that  under  the  contract  the  defendant  acquired 
no  title  to  the  ])ew  but  only  a  right  to  acquire  a  title  upon  a 
compliance  with  the  terms  of  sale;  that  he  had  only  a  license 
to  occupy,  or  a  tenancy  for  a  year,  or  a  tenancy  at  will. 
First  Parish,  Quincy  v  Spear,  15  Pick.  (^[ass.  t  144. 

A  pew-owner's  right   may  be  forfeited  foi-  nonpayment  of 


PEWS  455 

assessments.  Abeniethy  v  Society  of  the  Church  of  the 
ruritaiis,  :5  Daly  (X.  Y. )  1. 

The  society  owned  its  meetinghouse  in  fee  simple,  and  was 
composed  exclusively  of  successive  ]»ewholdei's.  A  by-law 
contained  a  provision  that  a  grantee  should  forfeit  the  jx'W 
to  the  society  if  he  should  leave  the  meetinghouse  witho\it 
lirst  ottering  it  to  them  f(U'  a  <-ertain  price.  A  pcwlioldci- 
who  ceased  to  worship  in  this  clinrch  and  connected  himself 
with  another  i-eligions  society  neglected  to  oll'er  his  p«>w  lo 
the  treasurer  but  rented  i1  to  another  perscni.  It  w:is  held 
that  title  to  the  ]>ew  luul  bi'conie  forfeite«l  lo  Ihe  society. 
The  condition  in  the  by-law  regarding  a  forfeiture  was  not 
repugnant  to  the  grant  ot  the  pew  and  was  valid.  Franch 
V  Old  South  Society,  Boston,  106  Mass.  479.  See  also 
Crocker  v  Old  South  Society,  lOt;  :Mass.  480. 

Incorporeal  Hereditament.  A  church  ])ew  is  not  assets  in 
the  hands  of  the  administrator.  A  pew  is  an  iucori>oreal 
hereditament.  It  is  not  mere  i)ersoual  property,  but  real 
property;  although  perhaps  not  real  estate.  The  remedy  of 
creditors  is  by  bill  against  the  heir,  McNabb  v  Pond,  4 
Brad.  (N.  Y. )  7. 

Indemnity  for  Loss.  Uide.ss  a  meetinghouse  at  the  time  it 
is  torn  dowm  by  a  vote  of  the  proprietors  is  not  only  untit 
for  j)ublic  worshi])  but  so  old  and  ruinous  as  to  render  its 
entire  demolition  necessary,  a  jtewholder  is  entitled  to 
indemnity  for  the  destruction  of  his  pew.  Gorton  v  Hadsell, 
9  Cush.  (Mass.  I  50S. 

The  parish  has  the  right  to  make  repairs  to  a  cliui-(li 
building,  or  take  it  down  ami  build  another,  and  iu  doing 
this  nuiy  destroy  a  pew;  but  the  jtewholder  is  enlilled  to 
indemnity  for  the  injury  or  loss.    (Jay  v  l>aUer,  17  Mass.  I.'..">. 

A  meetinghouse  was  built  n|)on  land  w  itii  the  ]»eTiiiissi(Hi 
of  the  owner,  who  subseiiuently  conveyed  the  laml  to  trust«'es 
in  trust,  to  be  occujiied  for  a  meetinghouse  connnon.  or 
green,  and  for  the  continuation  of  a  meetinghouse  ther«'on, 
and  wheti  it  ceased  to  be  occui>ied  for  lh:il  purpose  to  revert 
to  the  grantor.     It  was  held  that    the   failure   to   keep   the 


ir.t;        T\i\:  cini  i.  law  and  'nii;  ciirijcii 

IwMlso  ill  siM'li  rcp:iii'  lii:il  il  could  he  occiijiiiMl  i'or-  [tiihlic 
worship  wonM  nol  of  ilscll"  Icriniiiitc  tlic  ri^^lil  (»!"  ;i  pcw- 
lioldor  to  his  pew  iioi'  h'iivc  him  wiliioiit  rij^ht  lo  iii;iiiit;iin 
an  action  for  injury  doiio  ilieivlo  hy  a  sti-anger,  hut  wouhl 
only  make  his  right  thereto  less  valuable,  and  therefore 
lessen  the  amount  whicli  he  couhl  recover.  A  7)ewliol(l<'r 
cannot  maintain  trespass  for  the  mere  breaking  and  entry 
of  the  meetinghouse  in  which  his  pew  is  situated,  but  he 
may  for  the  destruction  of  his  pew,  and  tliis  although  he 
sue  for  the  entrj^  with  it,  for  the  destruction  of  the  pew  is 
the  gist  of  the  action. 

A  pewholder's  right  is  only  a  right  to  occupy  his  pew  dur- 
ing public  worship  and  when  the  meetinghouse  is  in  such 
condition  that  it  cannot  be,  and  is  not  occupied  for  public 
worship,  he  can  recover  only  nominal  damages  for  injury 
to  his  pew.    Howe  v  Stevens,  4.7  Yt.  2()2. 

In  Cooper  v  Presby.  Ch.  of  Sandy  Hill,  32  Barb.  (N.  Y.  i 
222,  it  was  held  that  the  trustees  had  a  right  to  cliauge  the 
structure  or  make  such  alteration  as  thej-  thought  best ;  that 
a  pew-owner  had  no  absolute  title  to  the  pew,  nor  to  the 
material  of  which  it  was  constructed,  nor  to  the  soil  under 
it;  also  that  if  a  j^ew  was  altered  or  destroyed  as  a  mere 
matter  of  convenience  or  expediency,  the  pew-owner's  only 
remedy  was  by  an  action  for  indemnity  or  compensation. 

A  parish  may  take  down  a  meetinghouse,  either  as  a 
matter  of  necessity  or  of  expediency;  in  the  former  case 
they  are  not  and  in  the  latter,  they  are,  bound  to  indemnify 
the  pewholder  for  the  loss  of  his  pew.  Howard  v  First 
Parish,  7  Pick.  (Mass.)  138. 

The  pewholder  has  an  exclusive  right  to  occupy  his  pew, 
and  to  maintain  trespass,  or  a  writ  of  entry,  against  any- 
one who  disturbs  him  in  his  seat.  But  he  does  not  own  the 
soil  over  which  his  pew  is  built,  nor  the  space  above  it,  for 
there  may  be  other  pews  in  a  gallery  above  him  whose 
owners  have  an  equal  right  with  himself.  The  parish  may 
take  down  the  building  and  rebuild  on  the  same  spot,  or 
may  alter  the  form  and  shape  of  the  building  for  the  purpose 


PEWS  l.")! 

of  making  ii  more  <-()iiveiiient.  11'  this  is  done  in  j^ood  laith, 
and  the  ])(i\v  is  destroyed,  the  j)aiish  iiiusl  jn-ovide  an  indem- 
nity for  the  pewholder  on  jnst  and  ecpiitable  princiides.    (iay 

V  Baker,  17  Mass.  4:J5. 

Locking  Pew.  J.and  was  conveyed  to  the  trustees  for  the 
use  of  the  church  and  society  for  a  place  of  i)id)lic  religions 
worship  for  such  church  and  society,  and  for  no  other  use, 
intent,  or  ])urpose  whatsoever.  In  the  deed  of  i)e\vs  the  pro- 
visions of  the  <leed  of  the  property  were  mentioned.  It  was 
held  that  a  pew-owner  had  the  sole  right  to  the  use  of  his 
pew  on  all  occasions  when  the  house  was  occupied,  thon<,di 
it  be  opened  for  i)uri)Oses  different  from  those  mentioned  in 
the  conveyance  thereof;  and  he  had  a  right  to  exclude  all 
other  persons  from  his  pew  on  such  occasions  by  fastening 
the  pew  doors  or  otherwise,  in  such  manner  as  not  to  inter- 
rupt or  annoy  those  who  may  occni>y  other  pews.     Jackson 

V  Kounseville,  5  Mete.  (Mass.)  127. 

Loose  Bench.  The  general  right  of  a  i)ewholder  does  not 
apply  in  case  of  a  loose  bench  which  the  church  authorities 
permit  to  be  placed  in  the  church  and  used  there  by  the 
owner,  and  he  cannot  maintain  trespass  against  the  trus- 
tees for  its  removal.     Niebuhr  v  riersdorff,  24  Wis.  ;51(). 

Louisiana  Rule.  A  pew  in  a  church  being  attached  to  the 
realty  is  of  the  character  of  a  usufruct,  ami  must  be  classed 
as  an  incorporeal  immovable.  Succession  of  (Jand)le,  2.">  l^a. 
Ann.  0. 

Mandamus.  A  mandamus  against  the  trustees  of  a  society 
is  not  the  proper  remedy  by  a  pew-owner  to  recover  ])os- 
session  of  it.    ('ommonwealth,  v  Ilosseter,  2  Bin.  (  Ta. )  :5»;(). 

Massachusetts  Rule.  Under  the  Massachusetts  parish  sys 
teni  a  j>art  of  the  cluirch  edifice  was  g(Miei-ally  apjuoprialed 
to  the  erection  <»r  ]»('ws,  which  were  usually  sdhl  and  the 
])roceeds  a])i»lied  lo  the  cost  of  erection,  or  to  ihe  selllemcnl 
and  support  of  the  minister,  or  other  parish  pnrposes.  The 
right  to  a  pew,  except  in  Boston,  was  j-egardcd  Ini  many 
purposes  as  real  estate,  in.  which  the  pr(>pi-i('l(»r  had  a  free 
hold,  for  the  invasion  of  which  a  writ  of  entry,  trespass,  and 


ir.S  Till':  CINIL    LAW   A.\l>  'I'lli;  <||l   kcii 

oilier  IcjiJil  i-ciii('«li('s  ;nl;i|)tcil  to  \  iii«li("il('  lijilits  l<»  rcjil 
estate,  wore  evci-  loniid  in  (•<nisl;iiit  use.  Hut  in  its  luitnre 
it  wns  a  frooliold,  an  estate  of  |KMiiliai-  character,  held  in 
subordination  to  the  corporation,  who  ai'e  sole  owners  of 
the  soil.  "The  right  to  a  pew,  althonj^h  everywhere  in  Massa- 
chusetts it  is  repirded  as  property,  and  in  even'  |»art  of  the 
state  excei>t  Boston  as  real  estate,  and  in  Boston  as  personal 
estate,  yet  it  is  property  of  a  i)e(  iiliar  nature,  derivative  and 
dependent.  It  is  an  exclusive  right  to  occupy  a  particular 
portion  of  a  house  of  public  worship,  under  certain  restric- 
tions. The  owner  of  a  pew  is  not  a  tenant  in  common  of  the 
estate  on  which  the  house  stands;  the  legal  estate  is  in  the 
corporation,  if  the  religious  society  be  one,  or  in  the  trustees, 
if  the  property  be  vested  in  them  to  the  use  of  the  congrega- 
tion forming  a  religious  society  for  public  worshij>."  At- 
torney (leneral  v  Proprietors  of  Meetinghouse  in  Federal 
St.,  Boston,  ;•>  Gray  (Mass.)  1. 

New  Building.  An  action  was  brought  by  a  pew-owner  for 
trespass  for  tearing  down  a  pew.  The  church  authorities 
justified  on  the  ground  that  the  edifice  was  in  a  ruinous  con- 
dition and  that  the  new  building  was  necessary.  The  court 
held  that  this  did  uot  necessarily  appear  from  the  facts  and 
that  there  was  no  ijennaneut  decay  or  unfitness  shown.  The 
plaintiff  recovered  judgment.  Gorton  v  Hadsell,  9  Cush. 
(Mass.)  508. 

The  grant  of  a  pew  in  perpetuity  does  not  give  an  absolute 
right  as  the  grant  of  land  in  fee.  The  pew-owner  takes  only 
a  usufructuary  right.  If  the  building  be  destroyed  by  cas- 
ualty, the  pew-owner's  right  is  gone.  If  the  church  has  to  be 
rebuilt  on  the  same,  or  a  different  location,  the  pew-owner 
has  no  claim.    Kincaid's  Ai)peal,  (>0  Pa.  St.  420. 

It  was  held  that  the  society  might  abandon  its  place  of 
worshij)  and  erect  a  new  building  without  subjecting  it  to 
any  liability  as  against  pewholders  in  the  original  edifice. 
Matter  of  Saugerties  Reformed  Dutch  Ch.,  10  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
239. 

AVhen  a  church  edifice  is  destroyed  by  fire  or  ai«y  casualty, 


PEWS  45!) 

or  becomes  unfitted  for  use  liom  age,  or  is  deiiiolislied  from 
necessity,  the  strictly  legal  rights  of  the  pewiioider  are  gone, 
but  in  a  new  edifice  built  to  replace  the  former  he  has  an 
equitable  claim  to  be  reinstated  in  a  position  corresponding 
to  his  former  one,  upon  bearing  his  fair  proportion  of  the 
expense;  and  if  his  rigiits  in  that  resjiect  are  disregardeil,  he 
is  entitled  to  compensation.  It  is  tlie  duty  of  the  trustees 
to  tender  to  the  pewholder  a  pew  in  the  new  edifice  corre- 
sponding in  location  to  that  which  he  owned  in  the  former 
building,  upon  the  payment  of  such  a  sum,  as  in  ecpiity,  he 
ought  to  i)ay  if  the  cost  of  the  new  structure  exceeds  the 
proceeds  of  tlie  sale  of  the  old  i>roperty  together  with  the 
sums  in  the  treasury  of  the  society ;  and  ii  they  failed  to 
allot  him  such  a  pew,  he  should  be  indemnified  in  damages 
for  his  loss.    Mayer  v  Temjde  Keth  El,  52  St.  Ee.  (N.  Y. )  (;:{S. 

A  deed  of  a  pew  in  a  synagogue  provided  that  if  a  new 
synagogue  should  be  erected  the  owner  of  the  pew  should 
be  entitled  to  a  pew  of  the  same  nund)er  in  tlie  new  building. 
A  new  synagogue  was  erected,  and  the  trustees  allotted  to 
the  pew-owner  a  pew  in  the  same  relative  location,  but  not 
of  the  same  nnniber,  which  was  in  a  different  ]»art  of  the 
room.  It  was  held  that  the  i)ewholder  was  entitled  to  a  pew 
of  the  same  number  as  the  old  one  without  regard  to  its 
location.  Samuels  v  Cong.  Col.  Israel  Anslii  roland.  .■")*_' 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  287. 

If  a  parish  abandon  its  meetinghouse  as  a  jdace  of  public 
worshij),  althongli  it  continne  to  be  fit  for  thai  ])urpose.  and 
erect  a  new  one  on  a  dillerent  site,  it  does  not  tiiereby  snh- 
ject  itself  to  any  liability  to  tlie  i)roprietor  of  a  jtew  in  the 
old  meetinghouse,  it  not  ajtpearing  that  the  ]>aris]i  acted 
wantonly  or  with  any  intention  to  injure  iiini.  l"\isselt  v 
First  Parish,  Boylston,  1!)  I'ick.    (Mass.)  ;5(;!. 

New  Pew.  "Thongli  seats  be  jjulled  down  in  a  chnrch,  yet 
a  i)rescrij)ti()n  to  have  a  seat  remains  to  evei-v  one,  so  tiiat 
if  seats  be  bnilt  n]>  by  the  oiHinaiy  where  anothci'  had  an 
ancient  one,  oi-  bnilt  on  part  of  it,  it  is  legal.  The  defendant 
had  as  mncli  .seat  as  she  had   bi'fore,  Init    not    in   I  lie  same 


[{■A)       Tin:  <i\iL  LAW  AM)  'I'm:  ciicKcrr 

pliicc,  aiiil  Jill  pulled  down  williniil  licp  ((Misciit ."  Archer  v 
Sweotnani,  Foil.  (lOnj^.)  IVHl 

Parish  Property.  Pews  in  a  cimicli  Ix'loiiji  to  the  parish 
lor  (lie  use  ol"  llic  iidiahilaiils,  and  cannot  Ix*  sold  nor  let 
without  a  special  act  of  Parliament.  The  occupier  of  a  pew 
ceasin<;  to  be  an  inhabitant  of  the  j»arish  cannot  let  the  ])ew 
with,  and  thus  annex  it  to,  his  house,  but  it  reverts  to  the 
disposal  of  the  churchwardens.  Wyllie  v  Molt,  1  Ila;^^'. 
Ecdes.  (Eno.)  10. 

Perpetual  Lease.  The  clnii-cli  was  erected  with  funds  raised 
by  subscription  on  the  understanding  that  i)ews  should  be 
held  under  perpetual  leases  reserving  rent.  In  Foote  v 
West,  1  Denio  (N.  Y.)  544,  it  was  held  that  the  purchaser 
from  a  pewholder  of  his  right  to  the  pew  was  not  entitled 
to  a  deed  free  from  rent  but  that  the  rent  followed  the  title 
to  the  pew. 

Pewholders'  Corporate  Rights.  The  pew-owners  formed  a 
corporation,  which,  under  the  statute,  had  authority  to 
control  the  meetinghouse,  but  such  control  could  be  exer- 
cised only  at  a  meeting  regularly'  called.  A  justice  of  the 
peace  had  no  power  to  call  such  a  meeting.  Therefore  an 
increased  assessment  on  pews  ordered  at  such  an  irregular 
meeting  was  held  void.    Bayberry  v  Mead,  SO  Me.  27. 

Possession,  Mandamus.  The  court  refused  a  writ  of  uuin- 
damus  against  the  trustees  to  restore  the  possession  of  a 
pew  to  its  owner  on  the  ground  that  he  had  a  complete 
remedy  at  law.  Commonwealth  v  Rosseter,  2  Bin.  (Pa.) 
360. 

Prescription.  In  an  action  for  disturbing  the  pewholder's 
possession  he  was  required  to  show  a  ])rescriptive  right,  and 
possession  above  sixty  years  was  held  an  insufficient  title  on 
which  to  maintain  the  action.  Stocks  v  Booth,  1  D.  and  E. 
(Fug.)  225. 

A  pew  in  the  aisle  of  a  church  may  be  prescribed  for  as 
appertaining  to  a  house  out  of  the;  parish.  Qujere,  as  to  a 
pew  in  the  body  of  the  church.  Davis  v  Witts,  Forr.  ( Eng. ) 
14. 


PEWS  401 

Ou  au  application  I'oi'  a  laculty  to  i'e])air  and  renew  a 
church  a  i>ai-i!shi()ner  ap])eai-e(l  to  tlie  decree  and  prayed  a 
faculty  niiglit  not  be  j^ranted  without  a  proviso  that  a  i>ew, 
claimed  to  be  held  by  him  by  prescription,  should  not  be 
removed  or  altered.  The  prescription  was  denied.  It  was 
held  that  a  prima  facie  title  b}'  prescription  was  estab- 
lished, and  that  the  facultj'  should  be  issued  with  the  pro- 
viso. Evidence  of  rejjair  of  a  pew  claimed  by  prescrip- 
tion is  not  absolutely  necessary,  as  no  rei)aii'  may  have  been 
made  within  the  period  of  any  one  living.  Kna])})  v  Par- 
ishioners of  St.  Mary  Willesden,  2  Robertson  Ecc.  Re.  (Eug. ) 

305,  ;u;i). 

Presumption.  l'ninlcrrni»(ed  posses.sjon  of  a  pew  in  tlu' 
chancel  of  a  church  foi-  thirty'  years  is  presumptive  evidence 
of  a  prescriptive  right  to  the  pew  in  an  action  against  a 
wrongdoer;  and  that  presumption  may  be  rebutted  by  })roof 
that  the  i)ew  had  no  existence  thirty  years  ago.  Griffith  v 
Matthews,  5  Durnf,  &  East.  (Eng.)  '2iH\. 

Real  Estate.  A  pew  in  a  church  is  real  estate  and  title  to 
it  can  be  transfei-red  only  by  a  writing  signed  by  the  ])r()per 
parties.  First  Ba])t.  Clnirch,  Ithacu  v  Pigelow,  10  A\'eiid. 
(X.  Y.)  28. 

In  l)e\itsch  v  Stone,  11  Ohio  Dec.  4:](!,  a  i)ew  was  held  1o 
be  real  estate,  and  not  subject  to  attachment  on  ]»rocess 
issued  by  a  justice  of  the  i)eace;  and  the  pew  having  been 
sold  by  the  original  owner  after  the  attachment  was  issued, 
it  was  held  the  title  i)ass('d  to  the  ]»ni(  Iimsci-  notwitlistanding 
the  attachment.  The  conrt  s;iid  llinl  ilic  pew  w;is  rciil  estate, 
and  its  character  cdiild  not  be  clKiiigcd  by  agi'eement  be- 
tween the  society  and  tlie  (»\\  nci-.  In  ibis  case  the  convey- 
ance from  the  society  to  the  (»wner  dt'clnicd  liiai  ihe  pew 
should  be  deemed  a  chattel  as  to  the  i)urchaser,  lint  real 
estate  as  to  the  society.  Such  an  agreement  could  not  chiingi; 
the  essential  character  of  the  j»ew. 

A  pew  is  real  estate,  and  under  the  testator's  will  j»asses 
by  a  devise  of  his  real  property'  to  his  widow  witli  i-emainder 
over.     A  person   deriving   title  to   the   pew    I'lom    one   who 


i(i2        Tin;  ("i\i  L  I, AW  AM»  Tin;  tin  kcii 

I'cccivcd  il  ill  iciiuiiiHlcr  \\;is  licid  ciilitltMi  lo  llie  piopfTl y. 
Bales  V  Sicincll,  10  Mass.  :','2:\. 

Rent,  Character  of  Debt.  A  pew  in  a  <liui<li  hvnt  is  u  very 
iliHercnt  kind  of  jiropeily  Ironi  a  jtcw  in  one  of  llie  <liurclies 
of  the  English  Establishment.  On  llic  dcalli  of  tlie  owner  of 
a  pew  his  personal  representatives  succeed  to  Iiis  title  for 
the  i)nr]>ose  of  sale,  lint  the  jx'w  only  is  cliai-^ealde  with  1h<! 
rent  accruing:;  after  his  death.  Where  a  pew  was  granted 
subject  to  a  yearly  rent  the  law  <loes  not  ini|»ly  a  covenant 
that  the  executors  shall  pay  the  rent  accruing  after  the 
grantee's  death.  It  was  accordingly  held  that  in  an  action 
against  the  society  for  nM)ney  loaned,  the  society  could  not 
set  off  pew  rent  accruing  after  the  owner's  death,  Chur«  h 
V  Wells'  Executors,  24  l»a.  249. 

Rent,  When  Preferred  Debt.  Rent  due  from  the  testator 
upon  a  church  jiew  is  not  a  i)referred  debt,  under  the  jinni- 
sions  of  the  revised  statutes  unless  it  is  rent  due  upon  a 
term  of  years  in  such  pew,  which  belongs  to  the  executors 
or  administrators  as  a  part  of  the  j)ersonal  estate  of  the 
testator,    Johnson  v  Corbett,  11  Paige  Ch.  (N.  Y. )  26r>. 

Repairs.  The  right  of  a  pewholder  was  s\ibject  to  such 
repairs  and  alterations  of  the  church  edifice  as  the  church 
authorities  might  direct,  and  their  action  cannot  be  re- 
strained by  injunction.  Solomon  v  Congregation  B'nai 
Jeshurun,  4J>  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.)  263. 

The  right  of  a  iiewholder  to  a  pew  in  a  meetinghouse 
owned  by  a  religious  society  is  subordinate  to  the  right  of  the 
society  to  repair  or  remodel  the  house.  A  religious  society 
may  alter,  remove,  or  destroy  a  j^ew  in  its  meetinghouse 
upon  j)aying  or  tendering  lo  the  owner  f\dl  comjiensation 
when  it  becomes  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  making  needed 
alterations  or  repairs  in  their  church  edifice.  A  per.son 
wrongfully  occuining  a  i)ew  may  be  removed  from  it  by  a 
police  officer,  or  by  the  owner  of  the  pew,  or  anyone  acting 
at  his  request.    Jones  v  Towne,  58  N.  H.  462. 

Where,  uiuler  the  New  Hampshire  statute  the  ]>ew-owners, 
with  the  consent  of  the  religious  societv,  made  alterations 


PEWS  4G3 

in  the  interior  of  the  chinch,  rcainmjiin},^  ;iim1  cli;niging  the 
location  of  the  pews,  a  subsequent  assignment  of  pews  to 
former  occupants  bj-  a  committee  of  j)ew-<)\viiers  was  sus- 
tained. Colby  V  Northliehl  and  Tilton  Coii^ncgatioiial  So- 
ciety, 63  N.  H.  03. 

It  seems  that  the  Massachusetts  act  of  1817,  c.  18!),  l-elat- 
ing  to  the  ai)pi'aisement  of  pews  when  about  to  be  destroyed 
for  the  purpose  of  repairing  and  improving  the  meeting- 
house, aj)plies  to  a  territorial  jKirish,  and  in  an  action  l»y 
a  pewholder  for  destroying  his  junv  it  was  competent  to  give 
in  evidence  the  appraisement  in  connection  with  the  testi- 
mony of  the  ai)i)raisers,  in  justification  of  tiic  parish,  and 
to  show  the  value  of  tlie  pew.  Kimball  v  Second  Congre- 
gational Parish,  Kowley,  24  JMck.  (Mass.)  347. 

Roman  Catholic.  In  Aylward  v  O'Brien,  KIO  Mass.  118. 
it  was  held  that  title  to  i)ews  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Chnrch. 
when  convej'ed  to  individuals,  was  not  held  by  them  in  any 
ditferent  way  than  in  the  churches  of  other  religious  de- 
nominations. The  j)arish,  or  the  projn-ictors,  may  abandon 
the  meetinghouse  as  a  place  of  jtublic  worshij)  witliont  any 
liabilitj'  to  ])ewholders,  although  the  ]»ews  may  thei-cby  be 
rendered  nearly  or  (piite  useless;  and  the  fact  that  the  meet- 
inghouse is  still  fit  to  be  used  does  not  render  the  parish  or 
the  j)ro])riet()rs  liable.  The  right  of  the  ])ewholder  is  held 
to  be  of  snch  a  nature  that  he  is  entitled  to  an  indemnity 
if  the  parish  or  the  proprietors  exerci.'^e  their  right  to  take 
down  the  churcli  when  it  is  in  such  a  condition  that  its 
demolition  is  not  aclnally  necessary;  bnt  if  it  has  become 
necessary  to  take  down  a  meetinghouse,  that  is  to  say.  if  a 
meetinglionse  has  become  so  old  and  r-uinons  that  its  Inrlher 
nse  is  not  practicable,  the  jiarish  or  proprietors  nee<l 
not  make  i)ayineiit  lo  a  jx'whohlei-  for  the  removal  of  liis 
l)ew. 

Land  was  conveyed  to  the  Bishoj)  of  Detroit  and  his  snc- 
cessors  in  office  in  trust  lor  the  erection  (»r  a  church  lliereon, 
to  be  used  as  a  ]>lace  of  ivlii^ious  worship,  and  loi-  spiiitnal 
use,   benefit,   and    behoof   of   the   (lerinan    Konian    <'alholic 


Ii;i  Tin;  (M\IL   LAW   AM>  Till:  CIHKC"!! 

(Mnircli  :in<l  ((Hi^i-cj^iil  ion  in  llic  city,  ;i(<or'(lin^  to  llic  rit«*s 
;in<l  ccrcnionlL's  of  s;ii<l  Koninn  (';itIiolic  Cliuicli,  :ini|  lor 
otlici-  (I'usts  tlKM'cin  ('.\jh-(*ss<m1.  TIk*  (]o('(\  ;iIso  proviflc*!  Unit 
in  the  event  of  a  Viic;incy  in  the  olTice  f)f  hislioj)  li;i|»i»eninj; 
between  tlie  (leutli  of  llie  l»islio|»  jind  the  ;i|»]»(»iMt nu'iit  of  his 
suecessoi"  the  premises  shonld  vest  dni'injf  sn<h  vjicjincy  in 
the  jirehbisho])  of  the  l{oin;in  Cjitholic  Chnrch  of  which  the 
diocese  shonld  he  a  sulfia<;ini.  Trustees  of  the  clnireh  were 
afterward  elected  nndei-  tlie  statute. 

lu  ii  controversy  between  the  officiating^  ju-iest  and  the 
trustees  as  to  which  had  the  right  to  rent  the  slips  it  was 
held  that,  under  the  deed  of  trust  and  the  constitution,  laws, 
and  usages  for  the  government  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  by  which  the  administration  of  the  temporalities  of 
the  church  is  vested  in  the  parish  priest,  the  riglit  to  rent  the 
slips  belonged  to  the  priests  and  not  to  the  trustees.  Smith 
V  Bonhoof,  2  Mich.  115. 

Sale  of  Property.  Under  the  New  York  religious  corpora- 
tions act  of  1818,  notice  to  pewholders  of  an  application  to 
sell  the  property  of  the  church  is  not  necessary.  The  trus- 
tees have  power  to  act.  ^fatter  of  Second  Baptist  Society, 
Canaan,  X.  Y.  20  How.  Vr.  (N.  Y.)  82-1. 

Sale.  Order  of  court  not  necessai-y  for  a  sale  of  pews. 
Freligh  v  Piatt,  5  Cow.  (N.  Y. )  494. 

Taxation.  The  ])ower  of  the  society  to  impose  a  tax  on 
pews  was  held  to  apply  only  to  the  purposes  specified  in  the 
deed,  and  a  tax  for  any  oilier  ]>urpose  was  held  invalid. 
First  Methodist  Episcopal  Society  v  Brayton,  J)  Allen 
(Mass.)  248. 

The  owner  of  a  pew  oflFered  to  sell  it  to  the  society.  Ap- 
praisers were  appointed,  but  they  did  not  agree  and  made 
no  report.  The  owner  continued  to  occupy  the  pew.  It  was 
held  that  by  such  occupancy  he  must  have  been  deeined  to 
have  abandoned  the  etlort  to  sell  the  pew  to  the  society,  and 
that  he  was,  therefore,  liable  for  a  tax  imposed  on  the  pew. 
Curtis  V  First  Congregational  Society,  Quincy,  108  Mass. 
147. 


PEWS  4r,r> 

A  pew-ow'iier  is  not  liable  ixMsoiially  lor  a  tax  levied  on 
the  pew  unless  tlieic  be  some  special  «;romi(l  Iroin  which  to 
iufei*  a  contract  or  pi-oniise  to  j)ay.  One  tenant  in  connnon 
of  a  pew  cannot  bind  the  others  by  si<j;ning  to  an  increase  in 
the  tax.    St.  Paul  Ch.  v  Ford,  'M  Barb.  (X.  V.  i  l(i. 

I'ewholders  are  liable  for  increased  assessments  on  pews 
for  church  expenses.  Curry  v  First  J'resbyterian  Congre- 
gation, 2  Pittsburg,  (Pa.)  40. 

Where  a  pew  was,  by  the  original  deed  of  the  j)roi)erty. 
subject  to  taxation  for  general  exi)enses  and  for  repairs  both 
of  the  church  and  lot,  and  the  society  was  afterward  incor- 
porated under  a  charter  which  required  the  assent  of  a  ma- 
jority of  the  pewholders  for  the  imposition  of  such  a  tax,  but 
the  charter  contained  a  provision  authorizing  its  amend- 
ment in  the  discretion  of  the  Legislature,  juid  the  Legislatni-e 
having  afterward  restored  the  right  to  inijiose  a  tax  for 
expenses  and  repairs,  it  was  held  that  the  later  statute  <lid 
not  violate  the  obligation  of  a  contract,  and  that  the  society 
had  power  to  imi»ose  a  tax  on  the  pews.  IJailey  v  Trustees, 
Power  Street  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  t;  Khode  Ishnid 
401. 

I'ews  were  sold  free  of  rent  to  raise  money  to  aid  in  com- 
pleting the  erection  of  a  church  edifice.  The  trustees  could 
not  afterward  without  the  jx'whohler's  c<nisent  assess  the 
pew  for  current  exixMises,  and  could  not  ]»roceed  against  the 
pewholder  personally  to  collect  an  assessment.  Trustees 
First  Presby.  Cong,  of  Hebi-on  v  (^nakenbush,  10  .Tohns. 
(N.  Y.)  217. 

Pews  may  be  assessed  for  church  exjjenses.  Aberuethy  v 
Society  of  the  Church  of  the  Puritans,  ::  Daly  (N.  V.  i  1. 

Termination  of  Right.  If  the  building  is  taken  down,  or  is 
destroyed  by  tire,  or  the  pew  is  destroyed  b\  a  neccssaiy 
alteration  in  the  internal  ai  rangeinenl  of  llie  cliurch.  ilie 
pew-owner's  right  is  gone.  Abernclhy  \  Society  of  the 
Church  of  the  Puritans,  :\  Daly  (N.  V.  i   1. 

Title.  The  right  to  a  jiew  granted  by  a  <  Inncii  corporation 
to  a  man  and  his  heirs  is  real  proj»erty,  an  incorporeal  ease- 


kk;        tin:  cinii.  law  and  1111:  ciiriicii 

iiicnl  or  iisuCi'iicliiiiry  ri^Iil  in  biinl  of  ;iiiollicr.  I'reHbyte- 
ri;iii  Cliiircli  v  Aiidruss,  21  N.  J.  Law,  .'{IT). 

Title,  Transferable.  Tlio  lillc  1o  a  ju'w  is  transferable  ;«k 
otlu'i-  real  t'slalc,  aii<l  an  assi<iinii(Mi(  (»f  the  interest  »)f  the 
]»e\\ -owiiei'  does  not  transfer  the  title  as  a<;ainst  the  levy  on 
an  execution  aj^ainst  tlie  ori<::inal  owner.  Bar-nai-*!  v 
Wliipple,  2!)  Vt.  4(n. 

Trespass.  The  owner  <»('  a  pew  may  maintain  tresj»ass 
a<;ainsl  a  |>erson  who  disturbs  him  in  (lie  possession.  Sliaw 
V  Heverid^e,  ::  Tlill  (N.  V.)  LM;. 

]^an<l  was  conveyed  io  several  persons,  most  of  ^^■llom  were 
nuMubers  of  an  incoriM)i-at<Ml  religious  society,  to  the  use  of 
such  jtersons  as  should  become  jK'wludilers  in  the  nieetinj^- 
house  to  be  erected  thereon.  Tlie  grantees  organized  them- 
selves a.s  j)ro])rietors  under  an  act  ]troviding  therefor.  The 
title  vested  in  them  on  such  organization  in  trust  for  the 
])ewholders,  the  use  shifting  to  those  persons  who  thereafter- 
ward  became  pewholders.  It  was  also  held  that  the  incor- 
porated religious  society,  which  occupied  the  land  by  the 
permission  of  the  body  of  proprietors,  for  the  i)urpose  of 
public  worship,  might  maintain  trespass  against  an  individ- 
ual j»roj)rietor  for  obstructing  them  in  such  occupation. 
Second  Congregational  Society,  North bridgewater  v  War- 
ing, 24  Pick  (Mass.)  r»04. 


PIOUS  USES 

Defined,  467. 

Described,  467. 

Jew.s,  468. 

Land,  devi.'^ed,  linht  of  possession,  468. 

Mini.sterial  land,  468. 

Minister's  supj)ort,  468. 

Missionaries,  468. 

Poor,  469. 

Defined.  Legacies  to  jdon-s  uses  are  those  which  ai«' 
destined  to  some  woi-k  of  piety,  or  object  of  charity,  and 
have  their  motive  in(k']tendent  of  tlie  consideration  wliicli 
the  merit  of  the  legatees  niiglil  jtrocure  to  them.  In  this 
motive  consists  the  distindion  lieiwceu  these  and  ordinary 
legacies. 

The  term  "jdons  uses''  includes  not  only  tlie  encourage- 
ment and  sujjport  of  pious  and  charitable  institutions  but 
those  in  aid  of  education  and  the  advancement  of  science 
and  the  arts. 

They  are  viewed  with  special  favor  by  the  law,  ami  with 
tlouble  favor  on  account  of  their  motives  for  sacred  usages 
and  their  advantage  to  the  public  weal.  State  v  McDonogh 
Instate,  8  La.  Ann.  171,  sustaining  a  legacy  to  the  city  of 
New  Orleans  and  the  city  of  Baltimore  of  funds  to  be  used 
for  tlie  establishment  ;iiiil  sujtport  of  free  schools  in  said 
cities  and  their  s\d)urbs,  imluding  sjK'cial  ])ro\ision  for  reli- 
gious and  secular  instruction  of  certain  specitie<l  clas.ses  of 
poor  persons  in  the  Town  ol  .MacDonogh,  a  suburb  of  New 
Orleans. 

Described.  Legacies  to  pious  uses  have  been  known  to  the 
civil  law  from  the  foundation  of  Christianity.  "They  are 
an  element  in  the  polity  of  municipal  adniinistJ-atious  in 
all  countries  which  have  ]M'ese!-\ed  the  lealnies  and  juris- 
prudence of  Koiiuiii  ci\  ili/,;ititm." 

1«i7 


HIS  THE  CI\'II>   LAW  AM)  Till:  ('III   l{('II 

Legiicii's  <<)  i»i<»iis  uses  jirc  lintsc  wliicli  ;ii('  destiiuMl  to 
sonio  work  ol"  l>i<'I.V,  or  ol)j('<'t  ol"  cliiirily,  iind  have  tlicir" 
motive  indepeiKleiit  of  the  coiisidciation  which  tlie  merit 
of  tlie  legatees  might  procure  t<t  lliciii.  In  tliis  motive  con- 
sists the  distinction  between  these  and  <>i-dinai-y  legacies. 

l^egacies  to  pious  uses  are  liighly  favored  hy  tlie  law  on 
account  of  their  motives  for  sacred   usages  and    theii-  ad 
vantage  to  tlie  j»ublic  weal.    Williams  v  Western  Star  Lodge, 
:JS  La.  Ann.  020. 

Jews.  In  Straus  v  ( Joldsinilli,  s  Sim.  i  l]ng.  i  (111,  it  was 
held  that  a  bequest  to  enable  i)ei's(»iis  professing  the  Jewish 
religion  to  observe  its  rites  is  good. 

Land,  Devised,  Right  of  Possession.  It  lauds  l»e  granted  for 
pious  uses  to  a  i>erson  or  corjtoration  not  in  being,  the  right 
to  the  possession  and  custody  of  the  lainls  remains  in  the 
grantor,  till  the  person  or  corporation  intended  shall  come 
into  existence.     Shapleigli  v  IMlsbury,  1  !Me.  271. 

Ministerial  Land.  In  New  Hampshire  it  was  held  that 
after  a  grant  of  land  to  a  town  for  the  use  of  the  ministry, 
if  the  town  be  divided,  and  such  land  fall  within  the  bound- 
aries of  the  new  town,  the  title  to  the  land  still  remains  in 
the  old  town.  The  disposition  of  such  land  was  not  regu- 
lated by  statute.  Where  the  new  town  sold  such  land  an<l 
received  the  proceeds  it  was  not  liable  to  a  religious  society 
for  any  part  thereof.  Union  Baptist  Society  v  Town  of 
Candia*^.  2  N.  H.  20. 

Minister's  Support.  The  general  words  "pious  u.ses''  are 
not  to  be  understood  in  their  broadest  sense,  so  as  to  author- 
ize a  religious  society  to  hold  lands  to  any  use,  however 
foreign  to  the  purposes  of  its  incorporation,  that  religion  and 
charity  may  sanction.  The  support  of  its  minister  is  a  duty 
that  devolves  upon  every  religious  society,  and  to  afford  him 
that  support  may  justly  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  objects 
of  its  incorporation.  It  is,  therefore,  a  pious  use  within  the 
meaning  of  the  statute.  Tucker  v  St.  Clement's  Church,  3 
Sandf.  Sup.  Ct.  (X.  Y.)  242.  atfVl.  8  N.  Y.  558n. 

Missionaries.     The  propagation  of  the  Christian  religion, 


PIOUS  USES  469 

whether  amoug  our  own  citizens  or  the  people  of  any  other 
nation,  is  an  object  of  the  hi<:;he.st  concern,  and  cannot  be 
opjjosed  to  any  general  rule  of  law  or  principle  of  public 
policy.  A  bequest  to  certain  persons  in  trust  to  pay  the 
income  to  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign 
^Missions  and  their  associates  was  held  not  void  for  uncer- 
tainty. The  members  of  the  board  could  be  ascertained, 
and  the  Income  was  to  be  appropriated  by  the  board  for  the 
general  purposes  for  which  the  board  was  established.  It 
was  not  necessarj'  to  ascertain  or  describe  the  particular 
persons  who  were  to  receive  in  foreign  countries  the  reli- 
gious instruction  intended  by  the  bequest.  Bartlett  v  King, 
12  Mass.  5:57. 

Poor.  Tlie  testator  gave  all  his  residuary  estate  to  the  in- 
corporated Tresbyterian  churches  in  the  city  of  New 
Orleans,  to  ''the  end  lliat  the  ]>oor  of  said  respective  churches 
may  be  cared  for."  The  legacy  was  to  pious  uses  within  the 
Louisiana  code,  and  was  not  indefinite.  The  churches  en- 
titled to  receive  the  benefit  of  the  legacy  are  capable  of  ascer- 
tainment, and  also  the  poor  who  are  to  be  the  direct  bene- 
ficiaries of  the  testator's  Itounty.  Auch's  Succession,  39  La. 
Ann.  104.'*,. 


PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD 

Affirmative,  470. 
NoKiitivo,  474. 
Church  of  England,  47G. 
General,  476. 
Perpetuity,  476. 
ReUgious  use,  477. 
Superstitious  use,  477. 
Time  limit,  bequest,  478. 
Transfer  tax,  479. 

Affirmative.  In  Read  v  Hodgens,  7  Ir.  Eq.  17,  it  was  held 
that  a  bequest  for  masses  for  the  testator's  soul  was  valid 
and  not  void  as  a  superstitious  use. 

In  Re  Hagenmeyer's  Will,  12  Abb.  N.  C.  432,  it  was  held 
that  a  direction  in  a  will  that  the  executors  pay  from  the 
assets  a  sum  of  money  for  the  jjurpose  of  having  masses  said 
for  the  testator's  soul  was  valid.  Also  a  bequest  in  trust  to 
a  religious  corporation  for  the  same  purpose. 

Testatrix  gave  the  residue  of  her  estate  to  two  Roman 
Catholic  clergj^men,  one  half  to  each,  with  the  request  that 
one  of  them,  named,  should  say,  or  procure  to  be  said,  masses 
for  the  repose  of  her  soul  three  times  a  week  for  one  year 
after  receiving  the  money,  and  the  other  half  was  given  to 
another  clergyman  with  a  like  request  as  to  masses  for  the 
repose  of  the  soul  of  the  brother  and  sister  of  the  testatrix 
for  one  year  after  the  money  was  paid.  It  was  held  that 
no  trust  was  created  contrary  to  the  Pennsylvania  statute, 
and  the  executor  was  directed  to  make  payment  of  the  resi- 
due according  to  the  terms  of  the  will.  Dougherty's  Estate, 
12  IMiila.  (Pa.)  70. 

The  testator  bequeathed  personal  estate  to  his  executors 
to  be  expended  under  the  direction  of  the  Archbi.shop  of 

470 


PRAYEKS  FOK  TUK  DIOAD  ill 

Dublin.  Tlic  coiirl  ordered  the  fund  paid  to  liini  on  lii.s 
declaration  that  he  intended  to  apply  it  in  part  for  the  main- 
tenance of  Ivonian  Catholic  officiating  clergymen,  with  direc- 
tions that  they  say  masses  for  the  rei)ose  of  the  testator's 
soul.    Blount  V  N'iditz,  1  Ir.  Ke.  (Ireland  i  42  (1805^ 

Testatrix  by  her  will  directed  her  executor  to  use  §100  of 
the  estate  for  masses  for  her  soul.  She  also  gave  her  resid- 
uary estate  to  the  Montro.se  Avenue  Catholic  Church  in 
Brooklyn,  New  York,  to  be  used  in  saying  some  mas.^es  for 
her  soul  and  for  charitj'  institutions,  as  directed  by  the 
pastor  of  the  church.  The  bequests  were  sustained.  Hageu- 
meyer  v  Hanselman,  2  Deni.  (X.  Y.)  87. 

Testatrix  beciueathed  to  a  priest  a  sum  of  money  to  be 
used  by  him  in  saying  masses  for  the  repose  of  her  soul. 
The  bequest  was  sustained.    Gilmore  v  Leo,  2^7  111.  402. 

Testatrix  bequeatlied  a  sum  of  money  to  a  Roman  Catholic 
priest  for  the  purpose  of  celebrating  masses  for  the  repose 
of  the  souls  of  the  priest's  grandfather  and  grandmother. 
This  beciuest  was  said  to  be  a  direct  donation  to  the  priest, 
with  an  injunction  for  its  use  in  a  particular  ceremonial.  It 
was  not  a  trust,  and  therefore  not  void  becau.se  incapable 
of  enforcement  by  living  beneficiaries.  Harrison  v  Brojiliy, 
51)  Kan.  1. 

Testator  gave  certain  ]»roperty,  real  and  juMsonal.  liie 
proceeds  to  be  used  in  saying  masses  for  the  repose  of  his 
soul  and  the  souls  of  si)ecified  relatives.  The  gift  was  sus- 
tained as  a  valid  charitable  use.  ITooftVr  v  Clogan.  171  111. 
402. 

Testator  becpieallicd  a  sum  to  his  executor,  a  jiortion  of 
which  was  to  be  used  for  liaving  anniver.sary  masses  said 
annually  "from  tlu'  day  of  my  decease,  for  myself,  my  «le- 
ceased  wife,  and  for  her  deceased  sister,  Lizzie."  The  be- 
quest was  sustained.    Webster  v  Sughrow,  (»!)  N.  II.  :?S0. 

Testatrix  becpicathed  a  fund  to  each  of  two  priests  to  be 
used  by  them  in  saying  masses  for  the  repose  of  her  soul. 
On  an  accounting  it  ajtiieared  that  one  of  the  priests  had 
died   since   the  death   of   the   testatrix,   but    that    the  other 


J7L'        tin:  ("i\il  law  am»  tiii;  <iiri;<n 

priest  \\;is  slill  lisiiiji.  Tlic  Ic^iicy  to  tlic  siir\  iviii;;  piicsi 
\\;is  (lircrtcfl  to  Ix-  piiid  |(»  liiiii  on  liis  sliowiiit;-  ;i  future  pei-- 
foi-uiiiMce  ol'  tlu'  eoudit iou  lo  siiy  masses.  Tlie  fund  1)0- 
(pieallied  to  I  lie  pii<'st  deceased  fell  into  the  residuum. 
i:slate  of  Howard,  5  ^lisc   (X.  ^'.  i  l'!)."). 

Testator  (lirected  tliat  certain  real  estate  be  converted 
into  money  and  that  thi-ee  fourths  theiH'of  he  jjaid  to  St. 
l-'rances  Hospital  of  New  ^'ork  for  the  henelil  oi  the  Blesw<l 
\'ir^iu  Mary  ]*uri;alorial  I-'und.  The  hosj)ital  had  no  Hiicli 
fun<l,  and  it  was  said  tiiat  tlie  only  use  that  could  be  made 
of  the  bequest  was  for  the  sayini;  of  masses  for  the  spirit- 
ual welfare  of  the  souls  of  the  dead  in  pur<;atory.  The 
bequest  <lid  not  ci-eate  a  trust  and  it  was  sustained.  John- 
ston V  Hughes,  187  N.  Y.  UG. 

Testatrix  made  a  be(iuest  for  nuisses  for  the  repose  of  her 
soul.  The  trustee  died  before  the  testatrix.  It  was  held 
that  the  lejj^acy  did  not  lapse,  but  that  the  court  would  ap- 
point a  |)erson  to  execute  the  trust.  It  was  also  held  that 
such  a  becpiest  ^^■as  not  a  superstitious  use.  but  was  a  reli- 
<;;ious  use  under  the  laws  of  New  Jersey,  and  was  valid  under 
the  j)rovisions  of  the  State  and  federal  constitutions  gnar- 
auteeiny,  freedom  of  con.science.  Kerrigan  v  Tabb,  39  Atl. 
(N.  J.  Ct.  of  Ch.)   701. 

A  provision  in  a  will  giving  a  fund  to  the  priest  who  may 
be  pastor  of  the  Beaver  Catliolic  Church  to  be  used  in  say- 
ing masses  for  the  testator  was  sustained  as  a  valid  private 
trust.    Moran  v  :Moran,  104  la.  216. 

Testatrix  made  a  bequest  to  the  priest  of  St.  Mary's 
Church  at  Lancaster,  New  York,  to  be  used  in  saying  masses 
"for  the  re]»ose  of  my  soul,  and  that  of  my  husband,  and  all 
my  relatives  and  benefactors."  The  bequest  was  sustaiue<l. 
It  was  held  that  the  legacy  to  the  i)riest  individually  did 
Tu»t  c()nnect  it  in  any  way  with  the  church.  I>y  the  uni- 
versal i)ractice  of  the  church  such  a  legacy  legally  be- 
queathed belongs  to  the  priest,  and  neither  the  church  or 
any  superior  of  the  prit^st  therein  can  call  him  to  an 
account  therefor.    Ee  Zimmeruuin,  I'l*  Misc.  i^N.  Y.)  411. 


I'lJAVi.Ks  I- on  Tin:  I)i:ai)  4t:; 

A  will  contained  llic  lollowini;  liccinrst  :  "1  jiivc  .-mkI 
bequeath  the  sum  of  si, (►()()  wliiili  luy  executor  shall  pay  to 
the  pastor  at  Newry,  IJIaii-  ("o\inty  (i*a.  i.  Un-  masses  U>\- 
the  repose  of  my  soul  aiul  lor  I  lie  repose  of  the  souls  ol  my 
relatives  and  the  repose  of  the  souls  of  the  faithful  of  my 
parish."  The  bequest  was  sustained,  aiul  the  exeruior  was 
directed  to  pa}'  the  whole  amount  to  the  ]>riest,  who  was  k* 
use  his  discretion  as  to  the  time  ami  i)lace  of  saying  the 
masses,  and  the  number  thereof.  Seiberts  Appc.il.  IS 
W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  27(i. 

In  Matter  of  Backes,  9  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  504,  a  provision  in  a 
will  directing  the  executor  to  expend  ni0Tu\y  for  masses  for 
the  testatrix  and  her  deceased  husband  in  a  German  Cath- 
olic Church  iu  Buffalo  was  sustained. 

In  Brennau  v  Breunan,  Ir.  Rep.  2  Eq,  321,  the  cotirt  sus- 
tained bcMpiests  to  be  used  iu  saying  masses  for  the  rei)ose 
of  the  soul  of  the  testatrix,  and  also  the  soul  of  her  liusband. 
and  the  souls  of  his  and  her  relatives. 

Testator  be<|ucathed  a  sum  of  money  for  masses  to  be 
offered  for  the  happy  repose  of  the  testator's  soul,  to  be 
ajtportioned  iu  a  i)articular  manner  between  dergyuuMi 
named  in  the  will  ami  the  ofliciatiug  clergymen  of  the  city 
of  Toronto.  To  the  objection  that  this  bequest  was  for 
superstitious  uses  and  therefore  void,  the  c«)urt  said  the 
gift  was  free  from  any  taint  of  illegality.  The  testator 
miglit  api)roj)riate  money  for  this  jMirpose  if  his  religion 
had  taught  him  thai  it  was  important  to  his  spiritual  wel- 
fare.   Elmsley  v  Madden,  IS  (Irant's  (Mi.  (Can.  i  MSii. 

The  testator  made  a  bequest  to  the  clergj-man  atiaehed  to 
the  parish  of  St.  Peter's,  ])roghe<la,  at  the  time  of  his  death 
from  time  to  lime  forever  therefrom,  niton  condition  that 
four  masses  each  month  shall  be  celebrate<l  "foi-  ilie  beneiil 
of  my  soul  and  tin'  souls  of  my  relatives,  the  jxtoi-  sduls  lai«' 
of  the  parish  (»f  St.  Peter,  Drogheda.  now  sulVeiing  in  jmrga- 
tory."  This  was  held  Nalid  as  to  the  <  hrgymen  in  oflice  at 
the  time  of  the  death  of  the  teslatur  and  to  their  survivors 
and    survivor   of    them,    and    after    their    de«ease    the    ftind 


171  Tin:  CINIL   LAW   ANh  Till:  ("Hi   KCII 

slionid    l)('((»iii('   ;i    |i;ir(    <»r    tlic   I'csidniii'y  cstalc.      hillon    v 
Kcilly,  10  h-.  K<|.  Ke.  152. 

Testator  j^ave  to  the  jiarisli  jwicsl  sjOO  to  he  used  in  say- 
iiij;  masses  for  the  testatoi-.  This  was  held  to  he  a  dirrd 
ji;ift  and  not  a  trust,  and  was  tlierefore  valid.  Sherman  v 
l?aker,  20K.  I.44(;. 

In  Toleman  v  O'Leary,  111  Ky.  ."ISS,  hci^uests  to  jnovidr 
masses  for  the  repose  of  the  soul  of  the  testator,  and  al.«<o 
the  soul  of  his  mother  and  other  relatives,  were  sustained. 

A  testatrix  bequeathed  a  sum  of  money  to  executors  to  In- 
used  for  masses  for  the  repo.se  of  her  soul.  This  was  held 
valid  and  not  a  superstitious  use.  Commissioners  of  Char- 
itable Donations  and  Be(}uests  v  Walsh,  7  Jr.  Eq.  Ke.  l*An. 

In  Bradsliaw  v  Jaokman,  21  L.  K.  Ir.  12,  the  court  sus- 
tained a  bequest  for  masses  for  the  eternal  rej)0se  of  her 
father  and  mother,  brother  and  sisters. 

Testator  made  a  bequest  to  the  bishop  for  the  jjurpo.se  of 
umsses  for  the  repose  of  testator's  soul.  This  was  not  a 
bequest  for  a  charitable  use  under  the  California  Civil  Code 
section  1313,  which  restricts  devises  or  bequests  for  charit- 
able uses.    Re  Lennon's  Estate,  92  I*ac.  870. 

Negative.  The  income  of  a  trust  fund  was  to  be  paid  to 
Roman  Catholic  priests  forever,  on  condition  that  they  say 
masses  for  the  rejjo.se  of  the  soul  of  the  founder.  This  was 
held  void,  and  the  fuml  was  ordered  paid  to  the  found- 
er's representative.  Re  Blundell's  Trusts,  :50  Beav.  (Eug.) 
300. 

A  bequest  to  the  Ronuin  Catholic  Primate  of  Ireland  and 
his  successors  forever,  upon  the  condition  that  he  and  they 
shall  celebrate  twelve  masses  each  "for  the  salvation  of  my 
soul  and  tlie  souls  of  my  relatives"  was  held  void. 

The  same  testator  bequeathed  a  fund  to  the  clerg^•men  of 
each  of  the  Friaries  of  St.  Franci.s,  St.  Augustine,  and  St. 
Dominick,  in  Drogheda,  subject  to  the  condition  that  there 
shall  be  celebrated  at  each  of  the  said  friaries  forty  masses 
''for  the  benefit  of  my  soul  and  the  benefit  of  the  souls  of 
my  relatives,  and  all  the  jjoor  souls  of  the  parish  of  St. 


PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD  475 

I'eter,  Drogheda,  remaining  iu  purgatory."  This  was  also 
held  void.     Dillon  v  Reilly,  10  Ir.  Re.  Eq.  152. 

Testator  made  the  followin;^  bequest :  •'!  hereby  direct 
that  my  executor  hereinafter  named  have  masses  rea<l  lor 
the  repose  of  my  soul  for  which  I  direct  him  to  exjiend  the 
sum  of  1500.00.''  This  bequest  was  held  invalid.  Schwartz 
V  Bruder,  (»  ]>em.  ( N.  Y. )  1«JI>. 

The  testator  <>ave  his  residuary  estate  to  bis  executors 
to  be  expended  by  them  in  i)rocuring  i)rayers  in  a  Roman 
Catholic  churcli,  "for  the  repose  of  my  soul  an<l  the  .souls 
of  my  family,  and  also  the  souls  of  all  others  who  luay  be  in 
purgatory."  This  bequest  was  held  invalid  in  Holland  v 
Alcock,  108  N.  Y'.  ;}12.  The  court  sai<l :  -There  is  no  bene- 
ficiary in  existence,  or  to  come  into  existence,  who  is  inter- 
ested in  or  can  demand  the  execution  of  the  trust."  The 
bequest  was  not  a  gift  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  or 
churches  which  might  be  selected  by  the  executors  in  which 
such  j)rayers  were  to  be  offered.  See  also  ()'(^onnor  v  Clif- 
ford, 117  X.  Y.  275;  (Jilman  v  McArdle,  UU  N.  Y.  451. 

Testator  bequeathed  to  his  executors  Jii>500  to  be  used  by 
them  in  having  masses  said  for  the  repose  of  his  soul.  The 
bequest  was  invalid.    Re  Mcl^voy,  (}  Dem.  Sur.  (N.  Y.)  71. 

Testator  made  a  bequest  for  masses  for  the  repose  of  his 
soul  and  the  souls  of  his  wife,  son,  daughter,  father,  and 
mother,  ai)propriatiiig  si»ecitic  amounts  for  masses  for  each. 
This  bequest  was  held  void  for  the  reason  that  there  was  no 
beneficiary  or  beneficiaries  of  the  trust  who  may  come  into 
equity  and  enforce  the  iK'rlormance.  It  is  evident  that  such 
a  trust  is  not  capable  of  execution,  and  no  conit  couhl  take 
cognizance  of  any  question  in  respect  to  it  for  want  of  a 
comi»etent  party  to  raise  and  litigate  any  (piestion  of  abuse 
or  perversion  of  (he  trust.    McIIngh  v  McCole,  1)7  Wis.  l(j(). 

In  Alabama  (Festorazzi  v  St.  .Iose])irs  Catholic  Church. 
104  Ala.  :>27  I  the  court  declared  void  a  biHinesl  to  a  church 
for  nmsses  for  the  repo.se  of  testator's  s«nil.  It  was  not  a 
gift  to  the  chni'ch,  nor  was  it  a  chai-itiililc  use.  noi-  a  privntc 
trust. 


-17(1  TIIIO  ('l\IL   LAW  AM)  'llli:  (IirKrH 

Church  of  England.  TIic  cliiircli  li;is  not  |>r()liil»iic«]  jtrayerH 
for  llic  <l<';i(l.     liiTcks  v  W'ooHi-cv,  I  Cvirleis  llOiiji;.)  r>()I). 

General.  For  a  case  contaiiiiiiji  a  discussion  of  jn-inciplcs 
relatiiifj;  to  gifts  for  masses  sec  (lilman  v  iJcArdle,  12  Abb. 
N.  C.  414,  aiul  cases  cited,  especially  tlic  Illinois  case  of 
Kelioe  V  Kehoe,  12  Abb.  N.  ('.   IJTn. 

Father  Browers,  who  was  a  priest  in  this  conj^re^alion 
at  the  time  of  his  death,  left  a  will  in  which,  among  other 
things,  he  made  a  devise  of  certain  real  i)roj)erty  to  the 
Roman  Catholic  priest  succeeding  him  in  tiiis  society,  and 
to  the  successors  of  such  priest,  with  a  coiulition  that  mas.ses 
should  be  said  four  times  a  year  for  the  repo.se  of  the  tes- 
tator's soul.  Father  Fromm  intruded  into  the  property, 
took  possession  of  it,  and  assumed  to  be  the  jdiest  of  the 
local  society,  but  he  had  no  authoiity  from  the  bishop  or 
other  superior  authority  in  the  church.  And  it  was  held 
that  he  had  no  power  to  act  and  could  not  lawfully  take 
possession  of  the  iiroi)erty  and  receive  the  devise  and  execute 
the  trust.    Browers  v  Fromm,  Add.  Pa.  Kep.  'M)2. 

Perpetuity.  A  testatrix  bequeathed  the  dividends  thence- 
forth to  accrue  on  certain  stock  to  be  paid  for  the  celebra- 
tion of  masses  upon  every  Sunday  and  other  days  stated  in 
every  year,  in  a  certain  Catholic  chapel  named,  for  the  bene- 
fit of  her  soul  and  the  souls  of  her  parents  and  other  rela- 
tives ;  also  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  in  order  the  tombs  of 
certain  relatives ;  and  the  remainder  of  the  interest  to  be 
paid  to  her  daughters  for  life,  and  after  their  death  to  be 
approi)riated,  while  the  world  lasts,  for  the  celebration  of 
masses  for  the  benefit  of  her  soul  and  the  souls  of  her  rela- 
tives. The  gift  was  held  void  as  creating  a  perpetuity. 
Beresford  v  Jervis,  11  Ir.  L.  T.  R.  128. 

A  bequest  in  aid  of  a  fund  for  the  erection  of  a  memorial 
church  with  an  obligation  that  the  i)nrish  priest  for  the  time 
being  sh(mld  celebrate  masses  at  a  particular  time  and  place 
forever,  for  the  repose  of  the  soul  of  the  testator  and  mem- 
bers of  his  family  was  held  void  as  creating  a  perpetuity, 
and  also  because  the  obligation  was  impossible  of  perform- 


]'Kavi:ks  fok  thi;  I)i:ai)  477 

ance  lor  the  i-t'a;suii  that  the  parish  jtriest  toiihl  iioi  celebrate 
the  masses  aceordiiig  to  the  terms  of  the  will  without 
ueglecting  other  official  duties.  Branuigau  v  Murphy,  1  Ir. 
Rep.  418. 

The  trust  of  a  fuiHl  was  lo  pay  llic  income  to  Roman 
Catholic  priests  forever,  upon  condition  of  their  sajing 
masses  for  the  repose  of  the  soul  of  the  founder.  It  was 
held  void,  and  the  fund  ^^  iis  ordered  to  be  paid  to  the  re])re- 
sentative  of  the  founder.  Re  Blnndell's  Trusts.  :!0  Hoav. 
(Eng.)  .3(10. 

Religious  Use.  In  Ireland  a  I>e(piest  to  provi<le  masses  for 
the  rejiose  of  the  soul  is  not  illegal.  "The  ads  dij-ected  to 
be  procured  are,  according  to  the  faith  which  the  (estatri.x 
professed,  sacrifices  to  God  in  the  most  proper  sense,  and  of 
the  most  solemn  kind,  on  behalf  of  all  the  faithful,  living 
and  dead,  including  a  particular  memorial  of  the  deceased 
person  specified;  but  they  are  not  necessarily  to  be  offered 
in  the  public  congregation  of  the  faithful,  or  in  public  at 
all.  The  elements  of  charity  in  its  most  extensive,  indeed, 
in  its  truest  sense,  which  they  contain  is  piety  to  God. 
According  to  the  Ronuin  Catliolic  faith,  cacli  celebration  of 
the  mass  involves  the  most  jterfect  act  of  charity."  At- 
torney-General V  Delaney,  Ir.  10  C.  L.  104,  121. 

In  Attorney-General  v  Hall,  2  Iri.sli  Re.  201  (1800),  con- 
sidering the  validity  of  beipu'sts  to  Roman  Catholic  ])riests 
for  masses  in  a  specified  Roman  (\itli(»lic  chui-cli  Inr  th*' 
rei)Ose  of  the  soul  of  the  testator  and  the  soul  of  his  wife, 
the  court  said  that  the  belief  in  the  ellicacy  <»f  prayers  for 
the  dead  is  not  oidy  lawful  but  one  <»l'  the  essential  doc- 
trines of  a  religion,  (he  advancement  (tf  which  the  law  deems 
to  be  charitable,  and  the  becpiests  were  declared  t<)  be  a  valid 
charity. 

Superstitious  Use.  A  devise  for  the  purpose.  anM»ng  other 
things,  of  estahlisliing  a  fuinl  to  be  used  liu-  the  jtei-petual 
continuance  of  prayers  for  tlic  soul  of  ilir  icsiaior  and  llu' 
souls  of  others,  was  held  lo  crcnie  a  su|K'rsi  it  jous  nsi  under 
the  act  of   1    ICdw.  (I,  chap.    1  I.  and   was  therefore  invalid. 


ITS        Tin:  ("i\  I  L  LAW  AM»  'riii:  (■iiri:(ii 

At  loriK'V  ( !('ii('r;il   \    i-'isiiiiioii^crs  <  \»iii|i;iiiy,  l!   I>c;i\.    (  Iji;;.  i 
151. 

Tcslalor  j;;iV('  Icj^jicics  lo  he  used  in  s;i_viiiji  iiuisscs  ['(ti- 
the repose  ol'  liis  own  son)  und  the  souls  of  oliici-  iicisons, 
and  for  other  pious  uses.  The  lc;;a<i('s  were  held  \«)i«l 
hecaiise  given  for  a  superstitiojis  use.  Ihsith  v  Cliapniaii, 
2  Drew,  Ch.  Re.  (Eug.)  417. 

Testatrix  made  becpiests  to  several  ]uiests  "that  I  may 
have  the  benefit  of  their  prayers  and  masses  for  the  repose 
of  my  soul  and  the  soul  of  my  deceased  husband."  These 
legacies  were  held  to  be  for  a  su]»erstitious  use,  an<l  there- 
for void.     West  v  Sliutlleworth,  '2  Myl.  cV:  K.  (Kng.)  084. 

Time  Limit,  Bequest.  Testatrix  bequeathed  to  her  executor 
the  sum  of  |5,500,  to  be  paid  over  by  them  as  therein 
directed  ;  .^500  each  to  the  i)astors  of  certain  Ronuin  Catholic 
churches  therein  named,  in  the  city  of  Brooklyn,  city  of  New 
York,  and  village  of  Moutieello,  in  Sullivan  County,  N.  Y., 
and  1-5  each  to  the  pastors  of  certain  other  Koman  Catholic 
churches  therein  named,  in  the  city  of  Brooklyn.  The  testa- 
trix directed  these  i)ayments  to  be  made  for  masses  to  be 
said  in  each  of  said  churches  for  the  repose  of  her  own  soul, 
and  the  souls  of  her  mother,  brother,  and  aunt.  Testatrix 
died  within  two  months  after  making  the  will,  leaving  a 
father.  The  bequest  was  sustained  on  the  ground  that  the 
sums  payable  to  the  pastors  of  the  specified  churches  were 
not  bequests  to  corporations  but  were  ''simply  legacies  to 
the  several  persons  who,  when  the  will  took  effect,  should  be 
exercising  the  i)astor's  functions  in  the  several  designated 
churches."    N'anderveer  v  McKane,  1 1  X.  Y.  Supj).  808. 

Testator  bequeathed  a  fund  to  the  i)astor  or  his  successor, 
to  be  used  in  saying  masses  for  the  repose  of  the  soul  of  the 
testator,  his  ])resent  wife,  and  a  deceased  wife.  This  was 
held  to  be  a  charitable  ^ift,  and  the  testator  having  died 
within  thirty  days  after  the  execution  of  the  will,  the  gift 
was  held  void,  under  the  Pennsylvania  statute  of  1855. 
O'Donnell's  Estate,  200  Vi\.  (r>. 

Testator  bequeathed  a  fund  to  a  eliurch  lo  be  use«l  in  say- 


PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD  470 

ing  masses  for  the  repose  of  his  soul,  but  the  bequest  was 
held  void  for  the  reason  thjit  under  the  Pennsylvania  sta- 
tute a  bequest  for  religious  uses  was  invalid  unless  tlie  will 
was  made  at  least  one  montli  before  testator's  d«Mlh.  it 
api»earing  tlmt  the  will  was  niadt-  w  illiin  liiat  time.  Hliyiii- 
er's  Ai)i)eal,  J):5  Pa.  St.  142. 

Transfer  Tax.  A  bequest  to  a  [)ast()r  and  to  his  siiccessois, 
to  be  used  in  saying  low  masses  for  the  repose  of  the  soul 
of  the  testatrix  and  others,  was  held  subject  to  taxation 
under  the  transfer  tax  act.  Matter  of  McAvoy,  llL*  Apj*. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  377. 

A  bequest  to  a  Roman  (.'atiiolic  j)riesi.  to  l»e  ajtplied  to 
masses  to  be  celebrated  puldicly  in  a  specitied  Roman 
Catholic  duirch  in  Ireland  for  the  repose  of  the  testator's 
soul  and  the  soul  of  his  Avife,  is  a  valid  charitable  becpiest, 
and  exemjtt  from  legacy  duty  under  the  '.\S\\\  section  of  .">  ^S:  (I 
Vict.  c.  82.    Attorney-General  v  Hall,  2  Irish  Re.  291  (ISOO). 

See  additional  cases  on  this  subject  cited  in  the  note  to 
Festorazzi  v  St.  Josejili's  Roman  Catholic  Church  (104  Ala. 
327)  in  25  L.  R.  A.  300,  and  also  in  a  note  to  Hadley  v  For- 
see,  (203  Mo.  41S)  in  K;  L.  R.  A.  (X.  S. )  'Ml. 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH 

Historical  sketch,  4S1. 

Description,  4S2. 

(iovcrnnicnt,  form  of,  482. 

Association  with  Congro{j;ut ionul  churchos,  483. 

Center  College,  Danville,  Kentucivy,  483. 

Congregation,  authority,  484. 

Consolidation,  484. 

Division  of  society,  apportionment  of  ])n)perty,  484. 

Division,  powers  of  Presbyterj',  485. 

Excomnmnication  by  General  Assembly,  486. 

Free  Portuguese  Church,  487. 

Foreign  Missionary  Society,  488. 

General  A.ssembh-,  Southern,  4SS. 

General  Assemblj',  described.  Old  School,  489. 

General  Assembly,  division,  effect  on  legacy,  489. 

General  Assembly  organized,  490. 

General  Assembly,  status,  490. 

General  Assembly,  when  decisions  binding  on  chui-ch,  490. 

Illinois  Orphans'  Home,  491. 

Indcjx^ndent  Church  not  possible,  491. 

Joint  ownership,  492. 

Local  society,  status,  492. 

Mercer  Home  for  disabled  clergymen  of  the  Presbyterian  faith,  493. 

Minister,  character  of  office,  493. 

Minister,  how  called,  494. 

Minister,  Presbj'tery's  power  of  appointment,  495. 

Missionary  house  of  rest,  496. 

Missions,  496. 

Old  and  New  School;  division  of  1838,  497. 

Old  School  Assembly,  claims  bequest,  498. 

(^Id  School,  General  Assembly,  political  deliverances,  498. 

Organization,  499. 

Organization  and  form  of  government,  499. 

Pastor,  terminating  relation,  500. 

Pennsylvania,  English  congregation,  500. 

Political  deliverances,  no  effect  on  local  property,  501. 

Presbytery,  membership,  502. 

480 


PKKSBYTIOKIAN  CHURCH  481 

Presbytery  of  New  York,  powers,  502. 

Presbytery,  relation  to  synod,  503. 

Property,  how  held  and  managed,  503. 

Publication  committee,  504. 

Ruling  elders,  election,  synod's  power  limited,  504. 

Scotch  Presbyterian  Church,  504. 

Scotland,  505. 

Secession  of  1838,  505. 

Secession,  effect  on  pastoral  relation,  507. 

Session,  508. 

Session,  jjowers,  509. 

Slaverj'  agitation,  510. 

Sovereignty,  not  in  membership,  511. 

Synod  of  secession  church,  512. 

Synod  powers,  513. 

Trustees,  513. 

Unconstftutional  deliverance  on  political  questions,  513. 

Westminster  College,  514. 

Historical  Sketch.  The  Presbyterian  Churcli  in  Ihe  United 
States!,  unlike  the  mother  ehuroli  in  Scothmd.  lias  not  at 
any  time  been  connected  with  the  civil  goveninicnt ;  and  in 
this  and  some  other  parlicnlavs  it  differed  from  llie  niotluT 
chnrch  in  the  iirincijdes  and  arrangement  of  its  govci  nmcnl 
before  the  ado])t  ion  of  its  const  it  nti<»n  in  17SS.  At  tli;i1  time 
the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelitliia  was  Ilic  liiglicsi 
tribunal  in  tlie  clnirch.  It  adoj)ted  the  constilut ion.  and  by 
it  the  General  Asscnd)ly  was  ci-eated  and  established  as  tlie 
highest  judicatory  of  the  clnucli. 

The  constitution  defines  and  ])rescribes  tlie  ]»owers  of  a 
gradation  of  courts  oi-  bodies,  in  \\lii(li  the  spiritual  govern- 
ment of  the  chuich  is  vested,  consisting;  of — 

First.  The  session,  com  posed  of  the  ]>astor  or  pastors 
and  ruling  elders  of  a  particnlai-  conuiegation. 

Second.  A  presbytery,  consistinii  «»r  all  the  luiuisiers  and 
one  ruling  elder  from  each  cougre^al  ion  witliii!  a  certain 
district. 

Third.  A  synod,  composed  in  like  manner  as  a  presbylery 
of  ministers  and  eblei-s  within  a  laiger  disi  rici.  inclnding  at 
least  Ihiee  presltyteries. 


iSL'        Tiir;  (M\ii.  \..\\\  AM)  'nil':  ciii  i;<ii 

Fourth.  Tlie  (Jciicnil  Asst'iiil)Iy,  r(nisisliiij;  of  (h'lcjiations 
from  the  various  j)i-('sl)\  (ciics. 

It  is  not  controverted  that  each  of  these;  bodies  altove  the 
session  may,  in  the  exercise  of  an  ai)i)ellate  or  revisory 
jurisdiction,  review  and  affirm  or  reverse  the  jud'^Mnents 
of  the  one  next  below  it,  and  tliat,  by  a  series  of  apjteals, 
the  decisions  of  a  session  may  ultimately  be  carried  be- 
fore the  General  Assembly.    ^\'atson  v  Avery,  2  Bush.  (Ky.) 

Description.  The  Presbyterians  have  a  distinct  directory 
of  church  government  and  discipline  set  forth  in  the  same 
volume  with  their  confession  of  faith,  but  separate  and  dis- 
tinct from  it.  They  usually  worship  by  themselves,  and 
form  a  distinct  society  from  the  other  sects.  The  Presby- 
terians are  as  old  as  the  Reformation.  With  the  Lutherans 
they  separated  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  they  soon  sep- 
arated from  each  other.  The  Lutherans  established  the 
Episcopal  form  of  chiirch  government.  The  discijiles  of 
Calvin  established  the  Presbyterian,  and  it  has  existed  ever 
since  on  the  continent.  It  was  afterward  established  in 
Scotland,  and  carried  by  the  Scotch  who  immigrated  in 
great  numbers  to  Ireland,  and  planted  there.  It  was 
brought  both  from  Scotland  and  Ireland  to  this  country, 
and  churches  have  been  formed  here  on  the  model  of  the 
church  of  Scotland,  and  professing  to  be  governed  by  the 
same  directory.  Each  society  or  parish  has  its  session ;  a 
number  of  parishes  form  a  presbytery ;  and  larger  divisions  a 
synod ;  and  the  whole  are  united  under  a  General  Assembly. 
Churches,  or  societies,  are  not  independent  of  each  other, 
but  connected  and  dependent.  Muz/y  v  WilkiTis,  Smith's 
X.  II.  Rep.  1. 

Government,  Form  of.  The  government  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  is  republican  in  form,  and  the  elders  are  simply  the 
representatives  of  the  people,  to  be  chosen  by  them  in  the 
mode  most  approved,  and  in  use  in  that  congregation.  Every 
Presbyterian  church  is  a  law  unto  itself  in  the  election  of 
elders  and  deacons,  limited  only  to  the  qualilication  of  the 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  48:J 

persons  elected,  who  nmst  hi*  male  ineinbei's  in  lull  coin- 
imiiiion.    Dayton  v  ('art it,  LMM;  I'a.  St.  1!>1. 

Association  with  Congregational  Churches.  In  1801  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  adopted  what  was  known  as  a  Plan  of  Union 
for  New  Settlements.  The  avowed  object  of  it  was  to  pre- 
vent alienation;  in  other  words,  the  affiliation  of  Presby- 
terians in  other  churches  by  sutfering  those  who  were  yet 
too  few  and  too  poor  for  the  maintenance  of  a  minister,  tem- 
l)orarily  to  call  to  their  assistante  the  members  of  a  seel 
who  differed  from  them  in  principles,  not  of  faith,  but  of 
ecclesiastical  government.  To  that  end,  Presbyterian  min- 
isters were  suffered  to  preach  to  Congregational  churches, 
while  Presbyterian  churches  were  suffered  to  settle  Congre- 
gational ministers;  and  mixed  congregations  \Nere  allowe<l 
to  settle  a  Presbyterian  or  a  Congregational  minister  at 
their  election,  but  under  a  plan  of  government  and  discipline 
adapted  to  the  cii-cumstances.  It  was  obviously  a  mission- 
ary arrangement  from  the  first,  and  they  who  built  u])  pres- 
byteries and  synods  on  the  basis  of  it  had  no  reason  to 
expect  that  their  structures  would  survive  it,  or  that  Con- 
gregationalists  might,  by  force  of  it,  gain  a  foothold  in  the 
Presbyterian  Clnirch  despite  of  Presbyterial  discipline. 
They  embraced  it  with  all  its  defeasible  properties  plainly 
I)ut  before  them ;  and  the  power  which  constituted  it  might 
fairly  repeal  it,  and  dissolve  the  bodies  that  had  grown  out 
of  it,  whenever  the  good  of  the  churdi  should  seem  to  require 
it.  The  General  Assembly  manifestly  designed  that  local 
societies  so  made  uj)  in  i)art  of  Presbyterians  and  Congre- 
gationalists  shonld  belong  to  some  ]»resbytery  as  an  inte- 
grant i)art  of  it.  And  a  delegate  from  such  local  church 
to  the  Presbytery  was  given  the  same  riglit  to  sit  and  act  in 
the  ])resbytery  as  if  he  had  been  a  ruling  elder  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  Commonwealth  v  Green.  \  AVhart.  (Pa.) 
5:51. 

Center  College,  Danville,  Kentucky.  The  trustees  of  the  col- 
h'ge  made  a  contract  with  the  Kentucky  Synod  j)roviding 
that  whenever  the  synod  should  i)ay  or  cause  to  be  paid  to  the 


ISJ  Tin:  CIN'II.   I-AW  AXI»  Tin:  ("FIlHril 

(•(tllofjc  (nislccs  (lie  Slim  of  .S-!(»,(H)0  sucli  sviiod  sIkhiM  have 
the  ri^'lil  In  clccl  llic  ciilirc  hoard  of  Inislccs  of  llic  collcjie, 
therchy  ])la(iiij;  (he  colh'^c  iiii(h'i-  (he  siii»('T-vision  of  th(*  Trcs- 
byterian  Clnirch.  In  conseqiuMue  of  diftereiices  growing 
out  of  tlio  Civil  War,  the  Kcnliicky  Synod  was  divided  in 
ISGG,  each  body  claiming  (o  be  the  true  s^iiod,  and  each 
claiming  the  right  to  elect  the  college  trustees.  The  General 
Assend)ly  wliich  met  at  Cincinnati  in  ISflT  declared  that  the 
sj'iiod  wliich  elected  the  appellants  tr\istees  was  not  the 
lawful  Synod  of  Kentucky',  but  that  the  other  synod  into 
which  the  original  synod  had  been  divided  was  the  true 
synod.  Therefore  the  ai»i)ellants  were  not  the  lawful  trus- 
tees of  the  college,  and  could  not  exercise  any  control  over 
its  affairs.    Kinkead  v  :M<Kee,  0  Bush.  (Ky.)  5^5. 

Congregation,  Authority.  The  authority  and  controlling 
power  of  the  congregation  recognized  in  the  book  of  govern- 
ment are  exemplified  in  the  practice  of  these  societies.  The 
congregation  directs  the  trustees.  The  former  act  as  the 
substantial  beneficial  owners,  the  latter  as  the  legal  instru- 
ments to  execute  their  will.  Worrell  v  First  Tresby.  Ch. 
23  N.  J.  Kq.  JM). 

Consolidation.  It  was  held  in  Stokes  v  Phelps  Mission,  47 
Hun  (N.  Y. )  570,  that  a  consolidation  could  not  be  had  by 
the  Eighty-fourth  St.  Presbyterian  Ch.  and  the  Pheli)s  Mis- 
sion for  the  reason  that  the  statute  (L.  187(»,  Ch.  17tii  so 
far  as  it  relates  to  consolidation,  only  authorizes  the  con- 
solidation of  two  or  more  religious  societies  or  corporations 
belonging  to  the  same  church  or  denomination.  The  Phelps 
Mission  was  undenominational. 

Division  of  Society,  Apportionment  of  Property.  The  society 
was  organized  in  1833.  In  1838,  on  the  separation  of  the 
I're.sbyterian  Church  into  the  New  School  and  Old  School, 
the  local  society  attached  itself  to  the  Old  School  and  con- 
tinued in  this  relation  until  1865,  when  it  attached  itself  to 
the  New  School.  A  discontented  minority,  which  preferred 
the  Old  School,  thereupon  elected  trustees  and  began  pro- 
ceedings to  obtain  possession  of  the  church  property.     It 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  485 

w;is  licld  that  b^'  the  olianges  in  the  rchitions  of  the  hxal 
society  there  was  no  abamlonnieiit  of  doctrine  or  faith  which 
the  church  was  originally  founded  to  support.  The  change 
of  relations  of  the  local  society  was  not  a  perversion  of 
church  properly  and  the  teaching  of  new  doctrines. 

The  property  cd'  the  churcii  was  accpiired  partly  under 
the  New  School  oi-gani/ation  and  partly  under  the  Old 
School.  The  court  directed  a  division  of  the  [uoperty  among 
the  two  parties  according  to  the  nund)er  in  each  at  the  time 
of  the  separation.    Niccolls  v  Rugg,  47  111.  47. 

Division,  Powers  of  Presbytery.  This  society,  composed  of 
about  800  members,  was  incorjiorated  under  the  laws  of  Cali- 
fornia. It  owned  real  ])r()perty  which  was  sold  for  about 
$50,000.  It  was  intended  to  use  this  fund  for  the  purchase 
of  a  site  and  the  erection  of  a  house  of  worship,  but  there 
were  dilferences  of  opinion  as  to  the  best  location,  a  small 
majority  preferring  one  place  and  a  large  minority  another. 
The  trustees  representing  the  majority  bought  a  jdece  of 
property,  whereupon  the  minority  petitioned  the  presbytery 
for  a  division  of  the  society,  and  also  an  ai»p()riit>uni('nt  of 
the  fund  arising  from  the  sale  of  the  other  |>roperty.  After 
hearing  all  the  parties  the  presbytery  divicU'd  the  society 
into  two  societies,  one  to  be  composed  of  the  jtetilioners  an<l 
others  who  might  join  them,  to  be  known  as  the  Central 
J'resbyterian  Church,  and  the  other  to  be  composed  of  the 
remaining  members  of  the  original  society,  and  lo  be  known 
as  the  Westminster  Presbyterian  Churcii.  TIic  laltcr  society 
was  to  retain  the  ivcords  of  the  tirst  clinifh.  Tlic  presby- 
tery also  creatcfl  a  commission  to  apporiion  the  iDrcgoing 
fund  between  llie  new  societies,  and  liie  fnnd  was  app(»r- 
tioned  acconling  to  mendtersliip.  The  Central  Cluir«li  ac- 
cepted the  action  of  the  jiresbylcry  and  became  fully  organ- 
ized as  a  Presbyterian  cliurch.  The  \\'estminsler  society 
rejected  the  action  of  the  i»resbytery,  and  the  lirst  church 
refused  to  divide  the  fnnd  willi  llie  new  Cenlial  Church. 
An  action  was  therenjion  commenced  on  beiialf  of  the 
Central  Churcii  against  the  tirst  ciiurch  to  recover  a  portion 


ISd  Till';  ("l\l  L  LAW  AM)  'I'lli;  riUKCll 

«»r  tlic  riiiiii  (Iciivcd  lixiii  (lie  sale  ol  llic  {)ri;,Mii;il  itidpcrly. 
II  \v;is  held  that  tho  first  clnirch  was  iiiidor  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  ])resl»ytcrv.  which  had  1h(!  power  to  deal  with  this 
society  in  all  matters  ecclesiastical,  and  it  was  nnder  the 
absolute  dominion  and  control  of  the  presbytery,  and  the 
<lecisions  an<l  decrees  of  tlie  j»i-esbytery  were  binding  upon 
the  local  society;  that  the  ])r('sbylery  had  i)ower  to  dissolve 
the  society,  and  that  the  decree  of  dissolution  was  effective, 
and  binding  on  all  judicial  fi-ibunals.  It  was  further  held 
that  the  nuMnbers  of  the  Central  Church  organized  on  the 
basis  of  the  decree  of  dissolution  of  the  first  church,  were 
beneficiaries  of  the  trust  fund,  and  that  their  interest  con- 
tinued after  the  organization  of  the  new  society;  that  the 
two  branches  into  which  the  first  church  was  divided  became 
its  legal  successors,  and  that  the  trust  fund  should  be  divided 
according  to  the  numerical  strength  of  each  of  the  new  so- 
cieties.    Wheelock  v  First  Presbyterian  Ch.,  119  Cal.  477. 

Excommunication  by  General  Assembly.  Protesting  against 
the  deliverances  by  the  General  Assembly  during  the  Civil 
War  ou  the  subject  of  slavery  and  loyalty,  a  large  minority 
of  the  church  iu  different  States  issued  a  paper  called  the 
"Declaration  and  Testimony.''  Displeased  by  this  paper, 
the  General  Assembly  rendered  au  ex  parte  decree  without 
a  form  of  trial,  declariug  in  effect  that  the  accused  ministi'rs 
slumld  not  be  allowed  to  sit  in  any  church  judicatory  higher 
than  the  session,  and  that  if  they,  or  any  of  them,  should 
be  enrolled  as  entitled  to  a  seat  by  any  presbytery,  such  pres- 
bytery should,  ipso  facto,  be  dissolved,  and  the  nuMubers  ad- 
hering to  the  General  Assembly  were  thereby  authorized  and 
directed  to  take  charge  of  the  Presbyteiial  records,  to  retain 
the  name,  and  exercise  all  the  authority  and  functions  of  the 
original  presbytery  until  the  next  nieeting  of  the  General 
Assembly.  In  Watson  v  Garvin,  54  Mo.  '^:^'^,  it  was  held  that 
the  foregoing  decree  cut  off  persons  included  therein  from 
the  higher  judicatories  of  the  church,  but  did  not  excom- 
municate them,  nor  in  any  uiaTiner  touch  them  as  individual 
nuMubers  of  the  church  or  congregation. 


I'KHSBYTIOKIAX  (  III  KCll  487 

Free  Portuguese  Church.  In  IS.")!  several  persons  resid- 
ing in  the  Island  of  Madeira,  constitnted  a  religions  body 
known  as  the  Free  Portuf^nese  rimrcli,  iinihM-  the  jurisdic 
tion  of  the  Free  IM-eshyteriaii  ("linrdi  of  Scot  hind.  Sn«  li 
persons,  or  at  h'ast  a  pari  ol'  tlieni.  in  1S.")|,  received  ilie 
proi)er  certilicale  ol' disnnssal  fr<tni  tlie  l"'ree  Clmrcli  I'resliy 
tery  of  (Jhisjiow  and  came  to  this  conntry.  Tiieii-  h-tter  of 
dismissal  required  that  they  shonhl  nniic  with  and  conic 
under  tlie  jurisdi«tion  of  the  I'reshyicrian  Chuicli  of  liie 
United  Slates.  'JMiey  went  1o  Jacksonx  iMe,  Illinois.  an<l  there 
assumed  to  be  a  rcliiii(Mis  body  nnder  the  name  of  the  I'l-ee 
Portuguese  Church,  ami  determined  to  erect  .i  suitable  build- 
ing ill  which  to  M'orshij).  Not  bein^  incorporated,  the  deed 
of  land  was  taken  in  the  name  (»f  indi\idual  members  of  the 
church  as  trustees.  The  ])ro]>osed  church  building  was 
erected  by  contributions  from  membei-s  and  others,  (d»ielly, 
it  appears,  from  members  of  the  Old  School  Presbyterian 
Church  in  other  States,  for  the  pur[»ose  ot'  building  a  church 
of  the  Old  School  Presbyterian  order. 

In  1856  the  Glasgow  letter  of  dismissal  was  presented  to 
the  Sanganu>n  Presbytery,  and  they  were  received  into  the 
presbytery.  In  185S  a  schism  arose,  resulting  from  the 
question  whether  baptism  administered  to  some  of  the  mem- 
bers by  the  Koman  Catholic  Church  in  ^ladeira  was  sulli- 
cient,  or  whether  there  slnuild  be  an  a<lditional  baptism 
according  to  the  Presbyterian  ]u-actice.  The  Sangnmon 
Presbytery,  to  whom  the  (piestion  was  submitted,  decided 
against  the  validity  of  the  Koman  Catholic  baptism,  but  con- 
sidered rebaptism  unimportant  and  unnec«*ssary.  A  party, 
led  by  the  ]iastor  who  was  opposed  to  rebaptism,  held  a 
meeting,  and  by  a  narrow  majority  voted  to  with<lraw  fi'om 
the  Sangamon  Presbytery,  .ind  thereupon  oi-gani/.ed  a  new 
congregation,  taking  possession  of  the  church  iu-o|»erty. 

The  minority  adhered  to  the  pr«'sbytery,  and  lU'ocnred  the 
selection  of  another  ]iastor.  The  minority  commenced  a 
]>roceediug  against  the  majority  t(t  i-ecover  jxtssession  of  the 
church   i>roperty.      It   was  held    that    whatever   may   be  llie 


iss        Tin:  ("i\  I  L  LAW  AM>  'I'lii:  <iii  ijcii 

('(•(U'siiisl  icjil  ri;;Iil  of  :i  cliiiicli,  or  a  portion  ol'  ;i  cliuitli  to 
sever  its  connection  willi  the  j)articulnr  presbytery,  witli  or 
without  its  consent,  it  «lo('S  not  follow  that  the  majority  in 
so  actin<2;,  become  entitled  to  the  i)roiterty  of  the  church  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  minority.  Their  rights  still  remain, 
and  should  be  adjusted  on  the  principles  of  ecpiity.  Neither 
adh('riM<j;  to  the  ])resbytery,  nor  withdrawinj^  from  it,  is  an 
illejjal  act,  and  therefore  did  not  affect  the  right  to  the 
propert3\  The  court  directe<l  that  the  church  property  be 
sold,  and  the  proceeds  divided  between  the  two  factions, 
according  to  their  respective  nundjers.  Ferraria  v  Vascon- 
celles.  2?>  111.  450,  :",1  111.  1. 

Foreign  Missionary  Society.  The  Presbj^terian  General  As- 
sembly was  incorporated  in  Pennsj-lvania  in  177J),  and  by 
its  charter  it  was  authorized  to  take  by  devise.  The  incor- 
porating act  transferred  to  the  corporation  all  the  property 
and  funds  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  a  body  which,  by  the  constitution  of  that  church, 
was  required  to  meet  and  did  meet  annually.  The  General 
Assembly  in  1837  established  the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions, 
charged  with  the  foreign  missionary  o])erations  of  the 
church.  This  was  held  to  be  the  only  Presbyterian  foreign 
missionary  society  in  the  United  States  at  the  time  of  mak- 
ing this  will  and  at  the  death  of  the  testator.  This  board 
was  the  creature  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  might  have 
been  dissolved  at  any  time.  A  devise  to  the  board  was 
invalid  because  of  lack  of  capacity  to  take,  and  a  devise  to 
the  board  could  not  be  treated  as  a  devise  to  the  (leneral 
Assembly.  A  devise  to  the  Presbyterian  Foreign  Mission- 
ary Society  was  therefore  held  void.  Chittenden  v  Chitten- 
den, 1  Am.  L.  Keg.  (  N.  Y. »  5:58. 

General  Assembly,  Southern.  Testator  bequeathed  the 
residue  of  his  estate  "to  the  trustees  of  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States, 
commonly  known  as  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church,  the 
same,  as  he  was  advised,  being  a  body  corporate."  It  ap- 
peared that  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War  in  ISGl  the 


PKKSBYTKKIAN  CHURCH  4S«) 

Pretibytei'iau  Cliuixli  in  the  United  States  was  divided,  llie 
Southern  Presbyterian  synods  meeting  to  form  a  Southern 
General  Assembly  confined  to  the  Confe<lerate  States.  In 
February,  1880,  a  corjioration  was  organized  in  Nortli 
Carolina  known  as  the  trustees  of  tiie  General  Assendily  of 
the  I*resbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States.  This  society 
was  held  to  be  the  one  intended  by  the  testator  in  his  will. 
It  was,  therefore,  entitled  to  take  the  legacy.  Guthrie  v 
Guthrie,  10  S.  10.  (Sup.  Ct.  Apj).  \ix.)  :V2~. 

General  Assembly.  Described,  Old  School.  This  is  the  high- 
est ecclesiastical  tribunal  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and 
all  organizations  and  members  of  the  church  act  in  subor- 
dination to  it.  It  possesses  the  unlimited  control  of  super- 
intending the  concerns  of  the  whole  church,  ajid  of  sup})ress- 
ing  schismatical  contentions  and  disputations.  It  combines 
within  itself  all  the  branches  which  constitute  the  elements 
of  a  complete  government,  namely,  executive,  legislative, 
and  judicial.  Sui»erintending  the  concerns  of  the  church 
and  suppressing  schism  are  certainly  not  judicial  acts. 
The  General  Assembly  is  the  highest  court  or  judicatory 
known  to  the  Presbyterian  Church ;  it  possesses  extensive 
original  and  appellate  jurisdiction,  and  no  civil  court  can 
revise,  modify,  or  impair  its  action  in  a  matter  of  purely 
ecclesiastical  concern.  But  in  addition  1o  this  it  has  legis- 
lative and  executive  capacity,  and  acts  \jpon  all  subjects 
coming  before  it,  according  as  they  belong  to  either  or  each 
of  those  departments.  It  seems  llial.  in  coiironiiity  with  the 
theorj^  and  doctrines  of  the  church,  it  is  tlic  sinirtc  and 
fountain  of  power,  and  that  its  authoiity  is  iicillier  dch*- 
gated  by  nor  derived  from  any  linuian  body.  Slate  of  ,Mis- 
souri  ex  rel  Watson  v  Fai'ris  ct  al  4~i  ^lo.  IS!'. 

General  Assembly,  Division,  Effect  on  Legacy.  The  division 
of  the  Presbyterian  Clmrch  in  May,  is:;s,  into  Obi  School 
and  New  School  and  the  organization  of  a  si-parate  (icneral 
Assembly'  of  each  division  did  not  atft'ct  the  status  of  the 
legacy  included  in  a  will  ni;itlc  in  No\ciiiIm  r.  1S:{7,  before  the 
division,    but    the    bramli    wliidi    a\;is   coiilinucd    as    a   sue- 


I'KI  Tin:  ("1\  IL    LAW   AM)  Till:  (III   K<H 

(•«'ss(»r  (»r  the  foiiiicr  siii;^l«'  (iciicriil  Assniildv  \v;is  Iicld  to 
be  tbo  ( i('ii('i;ii  Assciiibly  iiitiMulcd  by  Ibe  tostiitor,  who  pro- 
vided ill  a  contingeiicv  that  the  lej^acy  shoidd  go  to  th«^ 
tnislces  of  the  Oeneral  Assembly.  The  New  School  General 
Assembly  could  not  lej^itimately  claim  the  legacy.  Trustees 
V  Shirgeon,  !>  I'a.  St.  MlM. 

General  Assembly  Organized.  Antecedently  to  the  memor- 
able year  of  1788  the  I'resbyterian  churches  in  the  United 
States,  like  their  ])arental  Church  of  Scotland,  ruled  by  ses- 
sions, ])resbyteries,  ami  synods,  acknowledged  a  connection 
between  church  and  state;  l»nt  in  that  year,  nearly  .simul- 
taneon.sly  with  the  a<loi»tion  of  the  federal  con.stitution, 
those  American  churches  confederated  under  a  national 
head  called  the  General  Assembly,  then  organized  by  an 
amended  constitution  for  representing  all  the  subordinate 
councils  and  for  acting  as  the  ultimate  council  for  revision 
and  advice  in  the  ecclesiastical  affairs  of  the  aggregate<l 
church;  and  that  modified  constitution,  coevally  and  con- 
currently with  the  political  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  denounced  all  connection  between  the  ecclesiastical 
and  political  governments.  Gartin  v  Penick,  5  Bush. 
(Ky.)   110. 

General  Assembly,  Status.  This  is  not  a  quasi  corporation. 
Such  a  coip(uation  has  capacity  to  sue  and  be  sued  as  an 
artificial  ]>eison,  which  the  Assend^ly  is  not.  It  is  also 
established  by  law,  which  the  Assembly  is  not.  Neither  is 
the  Assembly  a  ]>articular  order  or  rank  in  the  cor]M)ration 
(the  Trustees  of  the  General  Assend)ly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church),  though  the  latter  was  created  for  its  convenience. 
Ft  is  a  consecrated  association,  which,  though  it  is  the  repro- 
ductive organ  of  cor]»orate  succession,  is  uot  itself  a  mem- 
ber of  the  body;  and  in  that  respect  is  anomalous.  Uoni- 
monwealth  v  Green,  4  Whart.   (Pa.)   5:^1. 

General  Assembly,  When  Decisions  Binding  on  Church.  The 
powers  of  this  body  are  not  divided  but  limited  by  the  con- 
stitution. If  it  be  true  that  the  inferior  courts  and  people 
of  the  church  are  bound  to  accept  as  final  and  conclusive 


1'Ijesp,vti:kiax  <'in'ROH  401 

the  Assembly's  own  coiisirmiion  of  ii.v  |M»\\('rs.  nnd  siihiiiit 
to  its  edicts  as  oblij^atoi-y,  willioiit  imiiiirin^  wlicllici-  ihcy 
transcend  the  baniers  of  the  coiislii  mion  or  not,  the  will  of 
the  Assembly,  and  not  the  constitnlion,  becomes  the  Innda- 
mental  law  of  the  chnrch. 

But  the  const itntioii  liavinj;'  been  adopted  as  tlie  su[>reme 
law  of  tlie  cliurcb,  nnist  be  siiprciiic  alike  ovei-  tlie  .Vsseiubly 
and  people.  If  it  is  not,  and  only  binding;  on  the  latter,  the 
supreme  judicatory  is  at  once  a  j^overnment  of  despotic  and 
unlimited  i)owers. 

But  we  hold  that  the  Assembly,  like  other  courts,  is  lim- 
ited in  its  authority  by  the  law  under  which  it  acts;  and 
when  rights  of  projjerty,  which  are  secured  to  congregations 
and  individuals  by  the  organic  law  of  the  church,  are  vio- 
lated by  unconstitutional  acts  of  the  higlier  courts,  the 
parties  thus  aggrieved  are  entirle<l  to  relief  in  the  civil 
courts,  as  in  ordinary  cases  of  injury  resulting  from  the 
violation  of  a  contract,  or  the  fundamental  law  of  a  \(»lnn- 
tary  association.    "Watson  v  Avery,  2  Busli  (  Ky. )  :\:V2. 

Illinois  Orphans'  Home.  Where  a  will  created  a  ti-usi 
for  the  ]»uri»ose  of  erecting  and  maintaining  an  orphans' 
home  "for  the  friendless  poor  of  all  denominations,"  and 
provides  that  the  Home  shall  be  controlled  "by  the  Presby- 
terian Churches  of  Ceiitral  Illinois,"  the  ruling  bodies  of 
these  churches  in  the  presbyteries  shown  to  be  situated  near 
the  center  of  the  State  ha\-e  jtower  to  control  the  Home,  and 
to  select  from  the  friendless  ]»oor  of  all  denominations  those 
who  shall  enjoy  the  testator's  bounty.  The  trust  was  suil'i- 
cieutly  definite,  and  w'as  capable  of  execution.  Kemmerer 
V  Kemmerer,  2'V.\  Til.  .">2T. 

Independent  Church  Not  Possible.  Because  unity  of  action, 
and  the  means  of  perpetuating  itself,  are  es.sential  features 
of  the  ]*resbyterian  Church;  and  that  the  lirst  of  these  fea- 
tures is  preserved  in  that  i)ortion  of  its  oi-gani/ation  which 
combines  the  whole  church  into  one  bo<ly,  and  the  other  is 
provided  for  in  the  succession  of  the  ministers,  which  the 
presbytery  alone  are  authoiized  to  ordain;  that  the  lirst  of 


i!t*j        'nii;  (INI  I.  LAW  ANh  'rill';  rinKcir 

fliese  is  ;iii  iinporhml  clciiiciil .  iml  llic  l;ist  is  so  ('ssciili:ii 
lliat  "williout  it  no  J'l'OshyhMiaii  cliuicli  cjin  )»<•  s;ii(l  to  exist. 

That  all  CM-clesiastical  aiil  lioriiies  iijtoii  I'rt'sbyttM-iaii 
Church  govcnmuMit  concni-  in  declaring  that  several 
churches  must  uuilc  to  loiin  a  i)resbytery,  and  that,  there- 
fore an  ln(loi>en(lenl  Presbyterian  chnrdi  is  an  anomaly 
whicli  cannot  consist  willi  the  Presbyterian  system.  Wilson 
V  Pres.  Ch.  ol"  John's  Island,  2  Kich.  Eq.  (S.  O.)  11J2. 

Joint  Ownership.  Land  was  given  to  this  society  and  also 
to  the  (lerinan  Keformed  Congiegation  on  an  agreement 
that  they  were  to  erect  and  nse  jointlj-  a  house  of  worship 
and  establish  a  burying  ground.  The  house  was  erected  and 
used  many  years.  The  agreement  was  by  parol,  and  there 
was  no  conveyance  of  the  land.  The  transact  ion  was  held 
to  be  valid,  and  the  donors  were  declared  to  be  triistees  of 
the  land,  holding  it  in  trust  for  the  religious  purj)oses  to 
which  it  had  been  dedicated  by  the  two  congregations. 
Beaver  v  Filson,  S  Ta.  St.  327. 

Local  Society,  Status.  In  the  Presbyterian  system  a  local 
church  is  but  a  member  of  a  larger  and  more  important  reli- 
gious organization,  and  is  under  its  government  ami  control. 
The  session  or  local  church  is  controlled  by  the  presbytery, 
the  presbytery  by  the  synod,  and  the  synod  by  the  General 
Assend>ly.  The  general  church  is  controlled  and  governed 
by  a  body  of  constitutional  and  ecclesiastical  laws,  and 
exercises  legislative  and  judicial  power.  Questions  of  rule, 
usage,  or  custom  atfecting  the  local  church,  or  the  relation 
of  its  members  to  the  organization,  are  subject  to  the  judg- 
ment of  these  several  bodies,  called  judicatories,  in  the 
Older  named,  and  the  decision  of  the  highest  to  which  any 
([uestion  is  carried  is  binding  upon  all.  Gaff  v  Greer,  8S 
hid.  122. 

In  the  Presbyterian  form  of  government  a  local  congrega- 
tion is  but  a  member  of  the  larger  and  more  important  reli- 
gious organization,  and  is  under  its  government  and  con- 
trol, and  is  bound  by  its  ordinances  and  judgments  in  purely 
spiritual  matters.    There  are  in  this  system  of  church  organ- 


PRESBYTERIAN  ('HURCH  493 

izatiou  three  jiidicalorii's,  or  icjtit'scniatiM'  l»»Mlit's — the  ses- 
sion, iH-esbvtiMV  and  (Jcneial  Asscialdy.  'J'lie  pui-jMjsi-. 
powers,  and  jurisdiction  oJ'  each  are  distincdy  staled  and 
promnlgated  in  the  jtrinted  books  containinjj;  its  history, 
articles  of  faith,  and  or<linances  whicli  constitute  tlic  body 
of  ecclesiastical  law  which  go^erus  this  denomination.  Tlie 
church  session  represents,  and  is  chosen  by  and  from  the 
local  society,  but  it  has  uo  authority  to  create  and  issue 
rules  of  discipline  or  establish  usages  and  customs  in  reli- 
gious matters;  in  this  respect  it  is  wholly  subordinate  to  the 
presbytery,  which  body  is  vested  with  the  functions  "to 
resolve  questions  of  doctrine  and  discipline,''  "to  ordain, 
install,  and  remove  and  judge  ministers"  and.  in  general, 
"to  order  whatever  pertains  to  the  spiritual  welfare  of  the 
churches  under  their  care."  Ishnm  v  Fullager,  14  Abb. 
N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  3(;:?. 

Mercer  Home  for  Disabled  Clergymen  of  the  Presbyterian 
Faith.  Testatrix  gave  land  and  money  for  the  ])nrjK)sc  of 
establishing  a  home  for  <lisable<l  clergymen  of  the  Trt'sby- 
terian  faith,  aud  in  the  devise  of  the  land  ]>rohibited  the  sale, 
disposition,  or  encundnance  of  any  i»art  (»f  the  land,  and  the 
ai)plication  of  it  to  any  otluM-  use  or  jturpose  than  that  speci- 
fied in  the  will.  It  N\as  held  that  this  did  not  i»r('\t'iit  ilic 
court  from  granting  an  order  on  tlic  ai»idicalion  of  the 
trustees  of  the  Home,  ])eiinitting  a  sale  of  a  small  portion 
of  the  land,  the  ])roceeds  to  be  used  lor  the  general  |»ui|)o.ses 
of  the  devise.  Such  a  «lisposition  of  the  land  was  not  deemed 
a  violation  of  Die  resti-iclion  contained  in  the  devise.  Tlu' 
sovereign,  the  State,  acting  throngli  its  c(»nrts,  li:id  \isilor- 
ial  su])ervision  of  the  devise  and  its  geneial  purpose,  and 
might  exercise  its  discretion  to  ]»ermit  a  cliange  of  the  cliai'- 
acter  of  the  ]>r(»perly  where  this  would  nol  l)e  :in  :itiii;il 
diversion  of  it  lo  an  (Uitside  ]»uri)ose.  Ke  Mei-cer  Home  for 
Disabled  Clergymen  of  the  Presbyterian  Faith,  Itll'  I'a.  St. 
232 

Minister,  Character  of  Office.  The  minisleiinl  ollice  is  nuide 
the  lirsl    in   dignity,   importance,   usefulness   in    the  convic- 


nil         'I'lii:  ciN  1 1,  LAW   ANh  'I'lii;  rinKcn 

lions  (»l'  lliis  l»()(ly  of  ( 'li  risi  i;iiis.  l\\  llicir  liiilli.  (I(»(iiine, 
.'iikI  ordinances  only  duly  or(l;iiiMMi  niinisl*'i-s  cnn  of  rij^lit 
;i(liiiinist<'r  tlie  sju-raincnls  and  pcrloriii  oilier  ruiHiions  and 
dntics  wliich  concern  llie  spirilnal  wi'lfai-c  of  those  who  are 
members  of  the  church  |>i()j)er.  Ishniii  v  I'nllaj:er,  H  Ahh. 
N.  (\  (N.  Y.)  'MVA. 

Minister,  How  Called.  According-  1o  the  nsa^M'  and  r«»rni 
of  j;()vernment  of  the  I'resbyterian  ('linr<h.  tin  tall  is  made 
by  the  con<i:rej;ation  duly  convened,  and  the  anionnt  ol  coni- 
l)ensation  or  salary  is  fixed  by  it,  and  inserted  in  the  call. 
But  the  pastoral  relation  can  only  be  established  with  the 
consent  and  nnder  the  authority  and  direction,  of  the  jires- 
bytery  having'  jurisdiction.  The  call  made  by  the  congrepi- 
tion  is  submitted  to  the  presbytery,  and.  if  ajtiu-oved  by  that 
body  and  accepted  by  the  candidate,  the  ])astoral  relation  is 
then  formally  constituted  by  installation  by  or  nnder  the 
direction  of  the  presbj'tery.  West  v  First  Presby.  (Mi.  of 
St.  I»anl,  41  Minn.  04. 

In  First  I'resbyterian  Church,  Perry  v  Myers,  5  Okl.  809, 
it  was  held  that,  according  to  the  usage  and  foini  of  govern- 
ment of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  a  call  made  out  by  tlie 
congregation  duly  convened,  in  which  the  amount  of  salary 
is  fixed  and  inserted  in  the  call,  does  not  become  effective 
under  the  rules  and  regulations  of  that  church  until  such 
call  is  placed  in  the  haiuls  of  the  minister  to  whom  it  is 
addressed,  and  is  deemed  equivalent  to  a  request  of  the  con- 
gregation and  of  the  i)astor  elected  for  installation  as  j)astor. 
but  the  i)astoral  relation  can  only  be  formally  consummated 
with  the  formal  sanction  of  the  presbytery,  and  the  refusal 
of  the  presbytery  to  jdace  the  call  in  the  hands  of  the  min- 
ister, or  to  install  him,  puts  an  end  to  the  civil  contract. 

The  rides  and  regulations  of  the  I*resbyterian  Churcli 
require  that  a  "call"  should  be  made  out  by  a  regularly 
called  meeting  of  the  congregation,  and  when  tlnis  made  out 
it  should  be  ])resented  to  the  presbytery  under  whose  care 
the  jterson  called  shall  be,  and  if  the  ]U'esbyt(My  think  it 
e.\]»edient  to  present  the  call  to  him,  it  may  accordingly  pre- 


riiESBYTKKlAX  (  UUKCH  495 

sent  it,  and  no  iiiiiiistcM-  (tr  caiididiiti'  sluiU  icceivo  a  call  Imt 
through  the  hands  of  tlie  presbytery.  A  ciill  not  dclivcrcil 
to  the  pastor  is  not  binding  on  the  clnucli. 

The  mode  of  obtaining  a  j)astor  is  jtointcd  out  in  the  l.'.ili 
chapter  of  tlie  form  of  government.  H  the  chnrch  is  satis- 
fied with  the  ministration  of  any  licentiate,  they  pre,sent 
him  with  a  call,  in  which  they  promise  him,  among  other 
things,  "all  proper  supi)ort,  enconragement,  and  obe<lience 
in  the  l^ord."  This,  if  he  consent  to  acce[»t,  is  presented  to 
the  i>resbytery  to  which  he  belongs,  and  is  regarded  there  as 
a  petition  from  the  congregation  that  he  should  be  installed 
their  pastor;  and  it  is  expressly  declared  that  no  candidate 
or  minister  shall  receive  a  call  but  through  the  han<ls  of  the 
presbytery;  and  if  the  presbytery  approve  it,  his  installation 
follows  upon  his  professing,  among  other  things,  his  ajtpro- 
bation  of  the  form  of  government  and  discipline  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  and  ])romising  to  subject  himself  to  his 
brethi-en  in  the  Lord,  and  the  organization  of  the  clmrdi  is 
complete.  Wilson  v  Pres.  Ch.  of  John's  Island,  2  Kich.  \a[. 
(S.  C.)  11)2. 

In  Presbyterian  societies  the  pastoral  relation  is  estab- 
lished and  discontinued  not  by  the  trustees  or  by  the  chnrch 
but  by  the  congregation  and  the  j)astor,  under  the  sancti()n 
of  the  presbytery.  The  call  proceeds  from  the  congrega- 
tion, contains  the  agreement  to  pay  the  salary,  and  is  snb 
scribed  by  their  elders  and  deacons,  or  by  tlieir  trustees,  or 
by  a  select  committee,  as  the  congregation  shall  ai)i»oint. 
It  is  i)resented  to  the  minister  only  thi'ongh  the  presl)yterv. 
and  will  not  be  elfectuated  witlntnl  its  ;,]»|»ruval.  \\'on.'ll 
V  First  i'res.  Cli..  2:'.  X.  J.  Va\.  !M;. 

Minister,  Presbytery's  Power  of  Appointment.  The  pastor  of 
the  church  having  died,  the  session  appointed  a  successor 
for  six  months.  Before  the  expiration  of  that  time  the  pres- 
bytery, with  which  the  local  .society  was  connected,  removed 
the  pastor  so  appointed,  and  another  temporary  pastor  was 
apj)ointed.  A  few  days  later  the  congregation  held  a  regu- 
lar meeting  and  voted  to  direct  the  session  to  employ  for  one 


.1!m;        Tin:  cin  ii.  law  and  tiii:  ciujrch 

year  IIh'  lirsl  IciiiporaiT  jiaslor  scIccIimI  by  il.  Tlio  iiilnislcr 
so  appointcMl  took  jjossessioii  of  llie  pai'soiiag(?  and  o((ui»ic(l 
the  i)iil|)it  about  six  inontbs,  wbeii  the  pn^sbytery  again 
assumed  control  and  assumed  the  right  to  till  the  pulpit. 
The  pi-esl)vtei-y  furthei-  assumed  to  discijdiiu'  the  members 
of  tlie  session,  ami  susjuMided  all  of  tliem  except  one.  The 
congregation  ])rotested  against  tlie  action  of  the  i)resbyterj% 
and  voted  to  allow  the  first  temjtorary  minister  to  occupy 
the  parsoimge  for  a  si)ecified  time  without  charge,  and  to 
pay  his  salary. 

It  was  held  that  the  presbytery  had  no  jurisdiction  to 
assume  control  of  the  temporal  affairs  of  the  local  society; 
that  the  trustees  were  bound  to  obey  the  order  of  the  congre- 
gation relative  to  the  occupancy'  of  the  parsonage,  and  that 
the  minister  who  was  placed  in  possession  of  the  parsonage 
by  direction  of  the  congregation  was  entitled  to  retain  it 
during  the  contract  period.  Only  members  of  the  congrega- 
tion could  nuiiutain  an  action  against  tlie  trustees.  Everett 
V  First  Presbyterian  Church,  5:j  N.  J.  Eq.  500. 

Missionary  House  of  Rest.  Testatrix  made  provision  in  her 
will  for  the  erection  of  a  building  to  be  used  as  a  temporary 
resting  place  for  missionary  workers  to  be  called  ''The 
House  of  Rest.''  The  property  was  to  be  transferred  by  the 
executors  to  the  Women's  Occidental  Board  of  ^Missions, 
with  the  executive  committee  of  the  Women's  Presbyterian 
Mission  Society  of  the  Los  Angeles  Presbytery  as  trustees 
and  managers  thereof.  The  gift  was  sustained  to  the  extent 
of  one  third  of  the  estate,  that  being  the  amount  available 
for  charitable  purposes  as  limited  by  the  statute.  Re  Pea- 
body's  Estate,  154  Cal.  17:{. 

Missions.  Testator,  after  various  bequests  and  devises  to 
Presbyterian  institutions  for  aiding  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  provided  that  the  residue  should  be  divided  eqmilly 
between  the  Board  of  Foreign  and  the  Board  of  Home  Mis- 
sions, but  did  not  specifically  designate  such  boards  as  Pres- 
byterian. It  was  held  that  the  testator  evidently  intended 
to  make  these  boards  in  the  Presbvterian  Church  the  ob- 


rKESBYTICKIAN  ClIUKCH  497 

jects  of  liis  bouiily,  and  (licy  weie  lit'ld  eiititlt'd  to  llic  ley;- 
acy.     Gilmer  v  Stone,  llM)  I'.  S.  r).S(;. 

A  bequest  in  aid  of  niissioiiarie.s  in  India,  to  be  expended 
under  tlie  direction  of  the  (Jenei-al  Assenddy's  Boa  id  of 
Missions  of  tlie  Presbyterian  <  liurch,  was  hebl  voi*!  for 
uncertainty.  The  beneliciaries  were  not  named  and  conbl 
not  be  clearly  ascertained.  Board  of  Fon'i<^ii  Missions  of 
the  Presbyterian  (Muirch  v  McMaster,  I'Vd.  Cases  No.  l."»s«i 
(Cir.  (^t.  Md.). 

Testator  bequeathed  the  icsidne  ol  his  esialc  to  home 
missions,  foreign  missions,  and  the  American  llilde  Society. 
The  missionary  beijuesls  were  held  to  iiave  been  intended 
for  the  Home  and  Foreij;ii  Missions  of  the  Southern  I'resby- 
terian  (Miurch,  e.Kce])ting-  a  specified  sum  which  was  to  be 
invested,  and  the  interest  paid  on  the  salary  of  the  pastor 
of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  at  Onterville,  West 
Virginia.  All  the  bequests  were  held  void  for  uncertainty. 
Pack  V  Shanklin,  4:',  W.  Va.  n04. 

Testator  bequeathed  a  fund  to  the  Board  of  Trustees  of 
the  Reformed  I'resbyterian  Church  of  Alleglieny,  Pennsyl- 
vania ;  to  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  United  I'resbyteriau 
Church  of  Pittsburgh,  J'ennsylvania,  ami  to  the  Board  of 
Trustees  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  of  Stockton, 
California,  to  be  divided  ecpujlly  between  them,  shai-e  and 
share  alike,  and  to  be  u.sed  for  missionary  jtuiposes,  the  sann' 
to  be  equally  divided  between  foreign  and  domestic  missions. 

The  be(piests  were  sustained,  subject  to  the  limitations 
as  to  amount  contained  in  section  l.')P5  of  the  Civil  Code  of 
California,  which  restricted  becpiests  to  chaiitalth-  institu- 
tions in  excess  of  one  third  of  the  estate.  Kc  Hewitt's 
Estate,  (U  Cal.  'Mil 

Old  and  New  School;  Division  of  1838.  in  is.'.s  occnrred  ilie 
well-known  schism,  by  which  the  I'resbyterian  Church  was 
divided  into  two  schools,  commonly  known  by  the  names  of 
the  Old  and  New  Sdiools.  This  was  etl'ected  by  the  seces- 
sion of  a  minority  from  the  (Jeuei-al  Assendily  of  tiie  rnil»'<l 
States.     The  nnijority  which   remained,  known  as  the  Obi 


IKS  Tin;  <'I\  I  L   LAW    ANh  'I'lli:  riHKCII 

S(li(»(»l,  w.is  (I(mI;ii-c(|  l»y  tin-  jinli(i;il  ;i  ill  lioli  t  ics  n\'  1 'ciili^yl- 
v;iiii;i  lo  1m'  tlic  true  corporate  (JeiiciMl  Asscmldy.  wliirh  IkmI 
Ix'cii  before  cic.ilcd  ]>y  llip  Lc^ishit  lire  of  l'eiiiisylv;iiii;i. 
This  lust  Asseiiihly  is  (lesi<;ii;ite«l  .is  tliiit  wliicli  met  in  the 
seventh  ]*resbyteri;iii  ('hiiich  of  l'liil;nlel|ihi;i,  niid  of  whith 
Mr,  I'lniiier  Av;is  nio(hM;itor.  Wilson  v  ri('sl»yteii;in  Cliureh, 
John's  IsIjiimI,  1*  IJich.  !:<i.  (  S.  (\)    lf)2. 

Old  School  Assembly,  Claims  Bequest.  Tesljitor,  who  dietl 
in  IS(>;!,  IkmiikmiIkmI  sever;il  portions  of  his  resi<|ii;iiy  esl:i<e 
to  the  (Jeneral  Assembly  <»!'  the  rresbyteri;in  ('hiir(h  in  the 
Confederate  States  of  America,  or  General  Assembly  nf  ihe 
Presbyterian  Chnrch,  South,  explaining  that  he  meant  by 
such  General  Assembly  "the  Old  School  I'resbyterian 
Church  in  the  South,"  and  "should  any  part  thereof  reunite 
with  the  Northern  church,  T  mean  the  i)art  which  shall 
remain  as  a  sei)arate  body  in  the  South."  The  bequests  were 
claimed  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  I'resbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States,  which  was  incorporated  by  the 
Legislature  of  Tennessee  in  18()2.  This  corporation  was 
held  entitled  to  the  foregoing  bequests.  Frierson  v  General 
Assembly  of  Presbyterian  Church,  7  Ileisk.  (Tenn.)  CS.'J. 

Old  School,  General  Assembly,  Political  Deliverances.  From 
the  commencement  of  the  late  war  of  rebellion,  and  during 
its  i»revalence,  the  General  Assembly  (Old  School)  at  its 
annual  meetings  made  deliverances  on  the  subject  of  slav- 
ery and  loyalty,  declaring  the  obligations  of  the  churdi  in 
this  regard.  A  large  minority  of  the  church  in  ditferent 
States  considered  these  deliverances  of  the  Genei-al  As- 
senddy  unconstitutional;  that  is  to  say,  that  the  church,  as 
a  church,  according  to  its  written  Confession  of  Faith  ami 
Foi'ui  of  Government,  had  no  authority  to  make  <leliverances 
on  purely  political  and  civil  matters.  This  niinority  i»ro- 
tested  against  these  deliverances,  and  issued  a  paper  called 
the  "Declaration  and  Testimony."  inveighing  against  the 
conduct  of  the  majority.  This  paper  gave  great  offense  to 
the  majority,  and  they  took  stej's  for  ]mnishing  the  otfenders. 
which  resulted  in  an  ex  parte  decree  rendered  by  the  Gen- 


PKESBYTKKIAN  CHURCH  4iM) 

eral  Asscnihiy.  willioiil  llic  Toiiii  (tl  liiiil.  ilcclMi-iii^  in  cllcct 
tlial  tlie  jiccnscd  iniiiistcrs  should  not  he  allowed  to  sit  in 
any  <lnu(li  jinlicatoi-y  higher  than  the  session,  and  that  if 
they,  or  any  of  tlieni.  should  be  enrolled  ns  «'ntilled  to  a  seat 
by  any  j»resbylery,  sn(h  jtresbylery  should.  ij>so  laclo.  be 
dissolved,  and  the  mendxM-s  adhering  to  the  (Jeneral  As- 
sembly were  thereby  authorized  and  directed  to  take  charjic 
of  the  pi-esbyterial  records,  to  retain  the  same,  and  exercise 
all  the  authority  an<l  functions  of  the  original  |)resbytery 
uutil  the  next  meeting  of  the  General  Assend>ly.     U.  S.  v 

(Miurch,  s  rtah  ;;io. 

Organization.  The  rresbyterian  (Mnircli  is  a  congi-ega- 
tional  body.  Its  jtowers  are  vested  in  its  membership,  and 
iruiy  be  executed  fhiough  its  delegated  authoi-ity  :  The  sidec- 
tion  of  a  i)astor  is  |»rinuirily  in  tlu^  (ongregation,  but  must 
be  approved  by  the  ]»resbytery  and  accei)te(l  by  the  niinistci- 
selected;  and  its  trustees  are  not  vested  witii  any  jtower  e\ 
officio  to  employ  niinistei-s  or  to  conti-act  as  to  salai-ies. 
This  j)ower  may  be  exercised  by  them  only  when  aulhoii/.ed 
by  <lirect  vote  of  the  congregation,  com|)osed  ♦)!'  those  who 
are  authorized  by  the  laws  of  the  church  to  particijjate  in 
such  meetings.  Myers  v  First  Presbyterian  Church,  Perry, 
5  Okl.  SOI). 

Organization  and  Form  of  Government.  The  I'rcsityicrian 
Church  consists  of  all  those  persons  in  every  nation,  logethei" 
with  their  children,  who  make  profession  of  the  holy  religi«»n 
of  Christ,  and  of  submission  to  his  laws.  "A  particular 
church  consists  of  a  nund>er  of  pioressing  Chi-istiaus.  with 
their  oHsju'ing,  voluntai-ily  assttciated  titgether  for  divine 
worship  or  godly  living,  agreeably  t<>  tin-  Holy  Scriptures, 
and  submitting  to  a  certain  form  of  govcriimcnt."  Haling 
elders  are  repi-esentatives  of  tlu'  peo]de.  chosen  by  thom  foi- 
the  j)urpose  of  exercising  govej-nment  and  <liscipline  in  con- 
junction with  the  i)astors  (tv  ministers.  The  pastor  and  rul- 
ing elders  com])ose  what  is  called  tin-  church  session.  This 
session  is  charged  with  maintaining  the  spii-itual  govern- 
ment of  the  congregation,  for  which   (hey  have  the  pow  ci"  to 


.-(M)        Tiir:  CI  NIL  \..\\y  .\m>  'riii;  ciiiimii 

iiKluirc  iiil«»  tin*  kiiowicdm'  :iii<l  ( Mii-isl  i;iii  coimIiicI  of  the 
iiioinbcrs,  to  <"iill  bcfoi-c  tli«Mii  (illfiidcrs,  lu  icccivc  iimmiiIkts 
into  tlie  cliurcli,  to  adiiioiiisli.  lu  iclmkc,  lo  siis|)<'ii(l  or 
exclude  from  the  sacraments  tliosc  wIhi  iuc  loiind  to  deserve 
censure.  Tlie  pastors  and  tlic  elders,  lln*  lallci-  representing 
the  congregation,  are  the  ollicial  <f(»v(M-iiin«;  Itody  of  tlu?  j)ar- 
ticular  church  in  the  adtninislr;i(ion  of  its  nllnirs.  Dciidcr- 
ick  V  Lnnipson,  11  Ileisk.   (Tciin.i  ."il'.'I. 

Pastor,  Terminating  Relation.  Alter  some  twenty-six  years 
of  service  as  pastor  nejjotiations  were  initiated  to  terminate 
tlie  pastoral  relation  resnltinj^  in  an  a<;reement  between  a 
committee  of  the  ]»'-e.sbytery  and  the  committee  of  the  elders 
and  trustees,  which  was  ratitied  by  the  congregation,  by 
which  agreement  the  pastor  was  to  resign  and  receive  a 
credit  of  .^2,000  on  a  bond  and  mortgage  given  by  him  to  the 
society  growing  out  of  a  purchase  by  him  of  the  parsonage 
property.  An  action  was  commenced  in  the  name  of  the 
society  to  recover  the  amount  due  on  tlie  bond  and  mort- 
gage, ignoring  the  alleged  credit,  whereupon  the  pastor  insti- 
tuted a  proceeding  to  restrain  a  society  from  collecting  the 
bond  and  mortgage,  for  a  judgment  establishing  the  credit 
of  |2,000,  and  for  the  cancellatiou  of  the  bond  and  mortgage. 
The  validity  of  the  contract  was  sustained  and  the  minister 
was  held  entitled  to  the  relief  sought  by  him.  Worrell  v 
First  Presby.  Ch.,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  90. 

Pennsylvania,  English  Congregation.  Land  was  eonveyed 
by  .lolin  IVnii,  -Ir.,  and  .iolni  I'eini  (ITS."))  to  certain  i)ersons 
for  and  on  behalf  of  a  religious  society  known  as  the  lOnglish 
rresbyterian  Congregation  in  trust  for  a  site  tor  a  liou.se  of 
worship  and  a  burial  place,  for  the  use  of  such  society,  to  be 
under  the  control,  management,  and  regulation  of  .such 
society  and  its  successors,  and  not  for  any  other  use  or  pur- 
pose. The  society  was  incorj)orated  in  ISl.").  A  division 
having  occurred  in  the  society  about  1S;58,  a  minority 
brought  an  action  to  oust  the  majority  from  the  manage- 
ment and  control  of  the  property.  It  was  held  that  when 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in   the 


PKESBYTKKIAX  CHURCH  501 

United  States  wus  divideil  tlif  po-siiiis  roiniMtsin;;  ilic  ma- 
jority of  this  cougregation  did  not  forfeit  their  intei-ests  in 
the  trust  by  refusing  to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  either 
of  the  eonrticting  jvidieatories.  It  was  hehl  that  no  partic- 
ular Presbyterian  connection  was  jirescribed  by  the  louiid- 
ers,  or  established  by  the  charter  of  the  society;  and  thai 
if  such  connection  had  been  jirescribed,  there  lias  been  no 
adhevsiou  by  a  connection  essentially  different,  and  iliat  i In- 
breaking  up  of  the  original  Presbyterian  confedcniiicMi  lias 
released  this  cougregation  from  the  duly  of  adhering  to  any 
particular  i)art  of  it  in  exclusion  of  another.  Therefore, 
when  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Uhurch  in 
the  United  States  was  divided  into  two  distinct  fragments, 
each  declaring  itself  to  be  the  true  General  Assend)ly,  the 
persons  composing  the  majority  of  this  congregation  did 
not  forfeit  their  interest  in  the  trust  by  refusing  to  acknowl- 
edge the  authority  of  either  of  the  conflicting  judicatories. 
Presbyterian  Uong.  v  Johnston,  1  Watts.  &  S.  (Pa.)  0. 

Political  Deliverances,  No  Effect  on  Local  Property.  Tin- 
society  (at  St.  Charles,  Mo.)  was  organized  in  1818,  and 
afterward  acquired  ])roperty  which  was  to  be  u.sed  for  reli- 
gious purposes  in  connection  with  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
The  local  society,  after  the  division  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  1838  into  Old  School  and  New  School,  remaine<l 
connected  with  the  Old  School  Assend)ly.  The  society  was 
connected  with  the  St.  Louis  Presbytery.  The  Gcnj-ral 
Assembly'  sought  to  dissolve  that  presbytery  on  account  td" 
its  adhesion  to  the  jjrotest  made  by  the  minority  of  the  gen- 
eral church  against  the  ])olitical  dcllNcranccs  of  tin-  Gcnt'ial 
Assembly  during  the  Civil  War.  This  suit  in\(»l\('(l  local 
property,  the  plaintiiVs  claiming  siu-h  only  because  of  the 
position  assumed  by  the  defendants  in  connection  with  sn<h 
protest,  which  it  was  claimed  had  resulted  in  their  excom- 
munication. The  court  held  that  the  action  ol  (he  (it-neral 
Assembly  had  no  effect  on  the  status  of  tlic  local  proitcrly 
nor  of  the  congregation,  and  consi-qui-nlly  that  the  th-fend- 
ants  could  not  be  excluded  from  the  po.s.sessiou  and  control 


.-.(I'j        'v\\\:  <'i\  iL  LAW  AXh  n'lii:  (in  i;rii 

of    ill)'    loc.il    clinrcli    |»ro|»('it  \ .      \\';its<»ii    v    (Jwrviii,    ."»!    .M<». 

Presbytery,  Membership.  A  I'rcshytci-ljm  coiijrrc^iiitioii 
(I(M's  nut  sch'cl  its  (Iclcjfatcs  lo  llic  Iii^'licst  courts  of  tli<' 
clinirli  |»i<t  vv  n;i(;i.  The  pastor  is  not  strictly  the  represeii- 
tiilivc  of  his  church,  exc('i)t  in  so  \'av  as  lie  may  jii<lge  it 
proper  so  to  act,  I'oi-  he  is  not  a  prcsltyter  by  virtue  of  his 
office  as  pastor  of  a  particular  cliar^c,  l)ut  hy  virtue  <»f  his 
ordination  to  the  <;(»siiel  ministry;  he  is  as  much  entitled  to 
iiis  seat  in  the  presbytery  without  having  a  charge  as  when 
he  has  one. 

So  the  lay  rei)resentative,  who  must  he  an  elder,  is  selected 
hy  the  session.  But  as  this  session,  an  inferior  church  judi- 
catory, is  composed  of  elders  elected  for  life  or  during  good 
lichavior.  it  follows  that  the  congregation  has  no  voice  in  the 
selection  of  such  rei)resentative,  and  that  he  may  or  may 
not,  according  to  circumstances,  represent  the  sentiment  of 
the  church.  Obviously,  therefore,  the  congregation  is  power- 
less and  i)assive  in  the  hands  of  its  church  courts  and  cannot 
be  justly  charged  with  the  acts  of  its  delegates,  in  either  the 
jtresbytcry  or  synod,  because  in  these  bodies  alone  resides 
the  i)ower  to  call  such  representatives  to  an  account  for  any 
unlawful  or  contumacious  acts,  which  they  may  commit  in 
their  rejiresentative  cai»acity.  McA\iley's  Appeal,  77  Pa.  307. 

Presbytery  of  New  York,  Powers.  The  trustees  of  the  l*res- 
bytery  of  New  York  constitute  an  ecclesiastical  governing 
bo«ly  having  control  over  the  several  I'resbyterian  churches 
in  the  County  of  New  York.  As  such  it  assumed  to  dissolve 
the  \Yestminster  Prebysterian  Church  of  AVest  Twenty- 
third  Street.  Its  decree  of  dissolution  could  extend  no 
further  than  the  ecclesiastical  or  spiritual  side  of  the  organ- 
ization attempted  to  be  dissolved,  for  the  Religions  Corpora- 
tions Law  confers  no  power  ui>on  such  a  governing  body,  or 
anybody  el.se,  to  dis.solve  a  religions  corporation,  considere<l 
as  a  legal  entity,  in  the  County  of  New  York. 

The  law  of  the  state  of  New  York  ]>rescribing,  as  it  has 
done  ever  since  lS7r>,  that    the  temporalities  of  a  religious 


PKESBYTEKIAX  ClllKCH  oO:] 

corporation  shall  he  adiiiiiiistered  in  accoidaiue  with  de- 
nominational nsaj;e,  contemplates  the  coexistence  of  a 
church  in  the  spiritual  sense  and  a  chuirh  in  the  lej-al  sense, 
working  together  toward  the  same  beneficent  ends.  When, 
however,  the  superior  governing  body  having  authority  omm- 
the  ecclesiastical  orjianization  decrees  its  dissolnlion,  there 
still  remains  the  legal  entity;  that  is  to  say,  the  trustees  of 
the  corporation  are  left  in  charge  of  its  property,  but  with- 
out any  spiritual  Ixtdy  to  maintain  services  or  carry  on 
religious  work  therein.  The  church  as  a  legal  corporate 
entity  remains;  the  church  in  a  spiritual  sense  is  dissolved 
and  gone.  Under  such  circumstances  the  trustees  hold  the 
property  subject  to  denominational  uses,  notwithstanding 
the  dissolution  of  the  spiritual  church.  The  presbytery  can- 
not oust  them  from  ottice  by  dissolving  the  spiritual  church. 
It  may,  however,  by  virtiie  of  its  control  in  ecclesiastical 
matters,  insist  that  the  trustees  continue  to  administer  the 
property  for  denominational  purposes,  and  if  they  fail  to 
do  so,  undoubtedly  it  would  have  a  standing  in  a  court  of 
equit}'  to  enforce  action  on  the  part  of  the  trustees  to  that 
end.  Westminster  Church  of  W.  23rd  St.  v  I'resbytery  of 
New  York,  211  X.  V.  214. 

Presbytery,  Relation  to  Synod.  No  presbytery  can  be  in 
connection  with  the  General  Assembly  unless  it  be  at  the 
same  time  subordinate  to  a  synod,  also  in  connection  with 
it;  because  an  aj)peal  from  its  judgment  can  reach  the  tri- 
bunal of  the  last  resort  only  through  that  channel,  it  is 
immaterial  that  the  presbyteries  are  the  electors  and  tlic 
synod  is  a  part  of  the  machinery  which  is  indispensable 
to  the  existence  of  every  branch  of  the  church.  Common- 
wealth v  Green,  4  Whart.  (Pa.1  5:51. 

Property,  How  Held  and  Managed.  The  custody  and  cai-e 
of  the  property  ]t«'rtains  to  the  trustees  for  the  uses  and  pur- 
poses for  which  they  hold  the  trust.  Chief  aniong  these  is 
the  maintenance  of  juiblic  worship  by  the  congregation,  an«l 
in  so  far  as  that  jnirjtose  is  concerned  the  trustees  must 
respect  the  wishes  and  action  of  the  session  as  to  the  use  and 


r>(n        tin:  ri\ii.  law  and  tiii:  ciiiKrn 

(Mc\i|i;i I i(tii  of  llic  house  of  w ofsli ip.  'I'lic  ri^lit  of  llie  KeHsion 
to  ('(Hilivtl  ill  iiJiv  Wiiy  the  propcfly  of  llio  coiiffrrf^atioii  is 
only  iii(i(l('iil;il  to  the  ri}j;lit  to  the  ofllce  of  elder.  l)ayton  v 
Cixrtvv,  2(m  Pji.  St.  401. 

Publication  Committee.  Iti  IST.'^.  the  ]»crsoiis  tlieii  coiiipos- 
iiiji  (he  loimiiillce  of  juihlicjition  were  incorporated  by  the 
Legislature  of  Virginia  nnder  the  name  of  "The  Trustees  of 
the  ]*resbyterian  Coniniittce  of  riil)li(ation,"  with  power  to 
receive  and  use  proi)erty  not  exceeding  at  any  one  time 
f200,000.  This  charter  was  approved  by  the  Tresbyterian 
General  Assenddy  at  its  first  meeting  after  the  incorpora- 
tion, and  the  committee  was  authorized  to  purchase  a  j)nb- 
lishing  house,  which  it  did,  and  established  a  publishing 
business  at  Richmond,  AMrginia.  The  object  of  the  com- 
mittee was  the  publication  and  circulation  of  books,  tracts, 
papers,  cards,  etc.  Testator,  a  member  of  the  l*resbyterian 
Church,  and  who  was  interested  in  the  work  of  the  com- 
mittee, by  his  will  gave  to  the  Presbyterian  Committee  of 
J'ublication  at  Richmond,  Virginia,  one  half  of  the  residue 
of  his  estate.  It  was  held  that  the  bequest  was  intended  for 
the  corporation  known  as  the  "'Trustees  of  the  I'resbyterian 
Committee  of  Publication,"  that  the  corporation  had  the 
legal  capacity  to  take  and  hold  the  bequest,  and  that  the 
bequest  was  valid.    AVilson  v  TV'rrv.  2U  W.  ^'a.  100. 

Ruling  Elders,  Election,  Synod's  Power  Limited.  The  order 
of  a  synod  directing  the  electiou  by  a  congregation  of  addi- 
tional ruling  elders  was  contrary  to  the  constitution  of  the 
church  and  not  obligatory  upon  the  session  and  congrega- 
tion of  the  local  church,  and  consequently  persons  claiming 
title  to  the  otlice  of  ruling  elder  by  virtue  of  an  election 
under  such  void  order  of  the  synod  did  not  thereby  become 
ruling  elders,  and  they  were  not  constituted  ruling  elders  by 
the  <leclaration  of  the  General  Assembly.  Watson  v  Avery, 
2  Bush.  (Ky.)  '^:i2. 

Scotch  Presbyterian  Church.  Property  was  conveyed  to  the 
society  by  a  deed  which  provided,  among  other  things,  that 
the  society  should  always  be  known  as  the  Scotch  Presby- 


I'Ki:sbvti:kia-\  ciiLitcii  505 

terian  Cliurcli,  that  iustruineiita!  iiiusu-  should  not  be  used 
in  its  service,  and  that  if  the  properly  should  be  sold  the 
proceeds  were  to  be  devoted  to  the  same  religious  purposes, 
by  the  same  organization  and  under  like  conditions.  On  the 
sale  of  the  property  the  Presbytery  of  Jersey  City  assumed 
to  direct  the  disposition  of  the  proceeds,  but  instead  of 
establishing  a  new  church  with  the  same  restrictions  the 
presbytery  divided  the  proceeds  between  three  other  Pres- 
byterian churches  in  Jersey  City,  in  all  of  which  instru- 
mental music  was  used.  In  an  action  by  the  representatives 
of  the  original  grantor  of  the  land  against  the  presbytery  to 
prevent  the  consummation  of  its  plan  to  divide  the  proceeds 
of  the  sale  among  certain  churches,  the  court  of  chancery 
granted  an  injunction  against  the  presbytery,  but  the  judg- 
ment was  reversed  on  appeal.  MacKenzie  v  Trustees  of 
Presbytery  of  Jersej^  Citj',  67  N.  J.  l^q.  052. 

Scotland.  "Before  the  Keformation  the  whole  territory  in 
Scotland  was  divided  into  parishes;  and  since  the  firm  estab- 
lishment of  the  I'resbyterian  Church  as  the  established  reli- 
gion of  Scotland  a  lot  of  land  is  set  apart  in  each  parish 
for  a  church  edifice,  and  probably  for  a  manse  or  parsonage 
house  and  other  parish  purposes,  and  this  land  is  specially 
and  inalienably  appropriated  by  law  to  the  support  of  public 
worship  conformable  to  tlie  faith,  discipline,  and  practice 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church."  The  Presbyterian  Church  of 
Scotland  never  did,  as  a  hierarchy  or  ecclesiastical  judica- 
tory', take  any  jurisdiction  of  the  I*resbyterian  churches  in 
this  country.  The  church  in  Scotland  was  divided  into 
parishes,  having  its  Kirk  session,  a  number  of  jKirishes  to- 
gether forming  a  i)resbytery,  several  presbyteries  forming  a 
synod,  and  over  the  whole  church  is  an  Assembly  formed  by 
delegates  from  all  the  synods.  Attorncy-Cieneral  v  Pro]>ri- 
etors  of  Meetinghouse  in  Federal  Street,  3  Gray  (Mass.)   1. 

Secession  of  1838.  In  1801  a  ]>lan  of  Union  for  New  Settle- 
ments was  adopted,  which  is  desiribed  in  the  foregoing  note 
on  Association  with  Congregational  cliur<  lies.  The  General 
Assembly  of  1S:>7  adojited  a  resolnlidn  ;il>i<ig;iting  this  plan. 


r>(M;        Till;  cixil  law  am*  tin;  <"iiri;(  ji 

slating'  ill  tlic  piraiiihh!  that  i(  was  iri-cgular  aiwl  uncoiisti- 
tulional,  and  was  not  a|>iH'(»v<Ml  I»y  tlie  i)rcsl)yteri«*s.  15y 
o|)('ralioii  <»r  (lie  abioj^alion  of  lliis  Plan  of  TTnifni  the  Synod 
of  Wcslcin  Kesrrve  was  declared  to  be  no  lonj^er  a  part  of 
the  ]M'esl»y(erian  Church,  and  it  was  also  declared  that  the 
Synods  of  Utica,  Geneva,  and  Genesee,  havinj;  been  forine<l 
on  the  basis  of  tin'  IMaii  of  Union,  were  out  of  ecclesiastical 
connection  witii  I  he  IMesbyterian  Church,  an«l  were  not  in 
■form  or  in  act  an  integral  part  of  the  chiiidi.  The  res<»lu- 
tions  of  excision  contained  the  (lualitication  tlial  ll  was  not 
the  intention  of  the  General  Assembly  to  attect  in  any  way 
the  ministerial  standing  of  any  member  of  either  of  said 
synods,  nor  to  disturb  the  i)astoral  relation  in  any  church, 
nor  to  interfere  with  the  duties  or  relations  of  private 
Christians  in  their  respective  congregations.  Local  churches 
continuing  to  be  strictly  Presbyterian  might,  on  applica- 
tion, be  admitted  to  presbyteries  conveniently  situated,  and 
in  any  of  the  exscinded  synods  presbyteries  continuing  to 
be  strictly  Presbyterian  were  directly  to  apply  to  the  next 
General  Assembly,  which  was  authorized  to  make  such 
disposition  of  their  cases  as  the  Assembly  might  de- 
termine. 

Commissioners  from  the  four  exscinded  synods  presented 
themselves  for  membershii)  in  the  General  Assend)ly  of  IS^iS 
and  demanded  to  be  enrolled  by  the  clerks.  This  demand  was 
refused.  This  xVssembly  m('t  in  the  Seventh  I'resbyterian 
Church  at  IMiiladelphia  in  May,  18:}8.  By  a  law  of  the 
church  the  moderator  of  the  Assembh'  of  1837  was  author- 
ized to  ])reside  at  the  opening  of  the  next  succeeding  As- 
sembly and  until  a  successor  was  chosen.  The  moderator 
of  the  Assembly  of  1837  assumed  the  duties  of  that  office  at 
the  oi)ening  of  the  Assend)ly  in  1838.  The  clerks  reported 
the  names  of  commissioners  holding  regular  commissions, 
and  also  reported  the  names  of  commissioners  whose  elec- 
tions were  claimed  to  be  irregular  on  account  of  the  relations 
of  their  synods  as  a  result  of  tlie  action  of  the  Assembly  of 
18:',7. 


I'RESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  507 

The  moderator  announced  that  conunissioners  whose 
names  had  been  enrolled  would  be  considered  members  of 
the  Assembly,  and  that  other  persons  claiminij  seats  should 
then  present  their  commissions  for  examination.  Comnns- 
sioners  representing  the  presbyteries  connected  with  the 
exscinded  synods  then  attempted  to  organize  the  General 
Assembly  by  the  election  of  a  temporary  moderator,  ignoring 
the  moderator  of  18.'{7,  who  was  then  presiding  in  the  new 
Assembly.  The  motion  to  elect  another  moderator  was  jmt 
by  the  member  who  made  it,  from  his  place,  the  regular 
moderator  still  retaining  his  seat,  though  not  acting.  The 
motion  for  the  election  of  a  temporary  moderator  was  de- 
clared carried.  Clerks  were  also  elected,  a  motion  for  their 
election  being  put  by  the  newly  elected  temporary  moder- 
ator standing  in  the  aisle.  The  persons  sympathizing  witli 
this  movement  then  elected  a  regular  moderator.  Tlie  body 
so  assuming  to  be  organized  as  a  General  Assembly  then 
withdrew  to  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  and  held  ses- 
sions there.  The  General  Assembly  as  organized  by  tlie 
moderator  of  1837  continued  its  sessions  in  tlie  Seventh 
Church. 

The  Assembly  which  adjourned  to  the  First  Church 
elected  trustees  under  the  act  of  I'ennsylvania  of  1790,  incor- 
porating the  trustees  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The 
trustees  there  elected  i)rocured  a  writ  of  quo  warranio 
against  the  trustees  hobling  office  under  an  election  by 
former  regular  General  Assend)lies. 

In  Commonwealth  v  Green,  4  ^^'hal•t.  (Ta.i  ~>:',\.  it  was 
held  that  the  General  Assembly  whicli  met  in  the  I'irst  I'res- 
byterian  Church  was  not  the  legitimate  successor  of  the 
General  Assend)ly  of  1S;>7,  and' therefore  that  the  trustees 
in  office  under  former  elections  at  the  time  the  First  Chnich 
Assembly  was  organized  were  not  usurpers,  as  ciiarged  in 
the  writ. 

Secession,  Effect  on  Pastoral  Relation.  The  i)astor,  owing 
to  s(nne  (litl'eT'ences  in  the  congregation,  was  re(|neste<l  to 
resign  by  the  presbytery  having  jurisdiction,  bn(  at  the  siig 


508        Till';  ciN  ih  LAW   A.\i»  'riii:  <iii  kcii 

j^cslioii  nl'  llic  |trcsl»\  Iciy  he  ((Hi  t  iiinol  I')  sctnc  tlic  chuicli 
;i  lew  moil  I  lis  longer  ;is  :i  supply.  TlM'i'ciipon  lie  was  elected 
as  a  staled  supply  lor  two  years.  TIk;  (piestion  luivinj; 
arisen  as  to  (he  lej^ality  of  the  vote  i)y  wliicli  tlie  j»astor  was 
eiii])loyed,  the  matter  was  sulniiillcd  lo  llie  presliytery,  which 
lield  (hat  some  persons  having  lieen  denied  1lie  rif^ht  to  vote 
at  this  election,  the  election  was  invalid,  and  the  pres]>ytery 
expresse<l  the  opinion  that  the  fnrther  emi)loyment  of  the 
l)astor  was  nnwise  and  i-ecommended  that  another  j)astor  be 
chosen. 

The  party  sui)iK)rtin*j  the  pastor  tiled  a  jnotest  with  the 
jiresbytery  and  declared  its  intention  to  withdraw  from  ItH 
connection  with  that  body.  The  j)resl)ytery  therenjion  de- 
i  laicd  that  the  j)astor's  party  had  seceded,  and  that  the 
remaining  mend)ers  of  the  chnrcli  constituted  the  local 
society  and  were  entitled  to  adnnnister  its  aflairs.  Subse- 
quently the  jtastor's  party  held  meetings,  elected  trustees, 
and  reemployed  the  pastor.  But  it  was  held  that  this  action 
was  irregular  and  illegal,  for  the  reason  that  this  party  had 
withdrawn  and  seceded  from  the  organization  and  could 
not  thereafter  exercise  powers  of  control  over  the  property. 
This  action  of  the  i)resbytery  is  binding  on  the  civil  courts. 
Gaff  v  Greer,  88  Ind.  122. 

The  minority,  consisting  of  a  part  of  the  ruling  elders,  the 
minister,  and  others,  seceded  from  the  church.  They  were 
held  not  entitled  to  any  jiart  of  the  church  property.  By 
seceding  they  could  not  take  with  them  any  ]iart  of  the 
property  which  belonged  to  the  corporation  or  church.  The 
situation  was  not  changed  by  the  fact  that  the  seceders  were 
numerically  a  majority  of  the  corporation,  nor  that  they 
remain  in  possession.  Ha\ing  sei>arated  themselves  from 
the  ecclesiastical  body  of  the  church,  formed  a  new  presbj-- 
tery  for  themselves,  the  comidainants,  who  were  adhering 
members,  by  operation  of  law,  became  the  cori>orators.  and 
as  such  were  entitled  to  the  possession.  Skilton  v  Webster, 
Brightly  N.  P.  (I'a.)  20^. 

Session.     The  session  is  the  governing  body  in  the  local 


I'KESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  509 

society  and  is  composed  of  the  ruling  elders  and  pastor,  and 
in  all  business  of  the  session  the  majority  of  its  members 
govern,  the  number  of  elders  for  each  congregation  being 
variable.  The  possession  of  the  elders,  though  accompanied 
with  larger  and  more  efficient  powers  of  control  than  that 
of  the  trustees,  is  still  a  fiduciary  i^ossession.  It  is  as  a 
session  of  the  church  alone  that  they  could  exercise  power. 
Except  by  an  order  of  the  session  in  regular  meeting  they 
have  no  right  to  make  any  order  concerning  the  use  of  the 
building;  and  any  action  of  the  session  is  necessarily  in  the 
character  of  representatives  of  the  chnrch  body  by  whose 
members  it  was  elected.  Watson  v  Jones,  l.">  AVall.  (L'.  S. ) 
C79. 

The  church  session  is  the  governing  body  of  a  particular 
congregation  or  church,  and  is  composed  of  the  pastor  or 
pastors  and  the  ruling  elders,  and  is  charged  with  maintain- 
ing the  spiritual  government  of  the  congregations.  First 
Presbyterian  Church,  Louisville  v  Wilson,  14  Bush.  (Ky.) 
252. 

Session,  Powers,  The  session  is  not  a  corporation,  and  has 
no  standing  as  a  body  in  any  civil  court.  It  cannot  main- 
tain an  action  in  a  civil  court,  nor  can  its  comj)onent  mem- 
bers maintain  such  an  action.  The  session  as  a  body  is 
chosen  by  and  represents  only  the  communicants  of  the 
church,  and  not  the  whole  congregation.  Its  jurisdiction  is 
wholly  spiritual.  As  the  trustees  are  a  conmiittee  of  the 
whole  congregation,  whose  duty  it  is  to  manage  their  tem- 
poral affairs,  so  the  session  is  a  committee  of  the  conunnni- 
cants  to  manage  their  spiritual  affairs.  As  a  judicatory  it 
is  its  duty  to  attend  to  the  s])iritual  iuhmIs  of  tlie  churcli  <lnr- 
ing  the  vacancy  of  the  [)astoi'ate  and  to  deci<k>  upon  the 
qualifications  of  any  pastor  who  is  called  temporarily  to 
officiate  in  jniblic  woisliip.  It  also  has  the  right  to  <leter- 
mine  upon  the  character  and  quality-  of  all  services  held  in 
the  church,  as  to  whether  they  are,  or  are  not,  religious  and 
s|)iritual  according  to  the  tenets  of  the  Presbyterian  Clmrch. 
The  session  has  no  power  to  enforce  any  of  its  judgments 


510  Till']  ('l\IL   LAW  AM)  THIO  CHI   I{<'I1 

('xc('j>l  l>y  spirit\i;il  (liscipliiic.  'I'lic  tnislccs  Iiwvo  no  right 
to  close  the  church  edifice  aj;aiiist  tiie  spiritual  authorities 
of  the  society  unless  authorized  thei-eto  bv  the  express  direc- 
tion of  the  congrej^atioii.  ()u  tIk*  other  hand,  the  spiritual 
authorities  have  no  right  to  open  the  church  and  use  it  for 
religious  services  at  the  expense  of  the  congregation  without 
their  consent.  Where  tliere  is  a  disjiute  hclween  the  session 
and  the  congregation  the  former  must  yield,  for  the  congre- 
gation is  the  superior  body.  Everett  v  First  Presbyterian 
(Muircli,  5:^  X.  J.  Va\.  500. 

Slavery  Agitation.  The  General  Assembly  of  the  l*resby- 
terian  Churcli,  while  often  counseling  Presbyterians  against 
patronizing  slavery,  had  never  advised  a  rule  against  it, 
nor  made  opposition  to  it  a  test  of  religion,  until  the  civil 
conflict  had  become  flagrant.  In  the  year  1815  the  following 
question  was  propounded  to  the  General  Assend)ly :  ''Do  tlie 
Scriptures  teach  that  the  holding  of  slaves  without  regard 
to  circumstances  is  a  sin,  the  renunciation  of  which  should 
be  made  a  condition  of  membersliip  in  the  Church  of 
Christ?"  and  the  Assembly  answered  that  question  in  the 
following  words:  "It  is  impossible  to  answer  the  question 
in  the  affirmative  without  contradicting  some  of  the  plainest 
declarations  of  the  Word  of  God.  That  slavery  existed  in 
the  days  of  Christ  and  his  a])0stles  is  an  admitted  fact;  that 
they  did  not  denounce  the  relation  as  sinful,  as  inconsistent 
with  Christianity ;  that  slaveholders  were  admitted  as  mem- 
bers in  the  churches  organized  by  the  apostles:  that,  whilst 
they  were  required  to  treat  their  slaves  with  kindness,  and, 
if  Christians,  as  brethren  in  the  Lord,  they  were  not  com- 
manded to  emancipate  them.  The  Assembly  cannot,  there- 
fore, denounce  the  liolding  of  slaves  as  a  necessarily  heinous 
and  scandalous  sin  and  calculated  to  bring  on  the  Church  of 
Christ  the  curse  of  God,  without  charging  the  ai>ostles  of 
Christ  with  conniving  at  sin,  introducing  into  tlie  church 
such  sinners,  and  then  bringing  ui)on  them  the  curse  of  the 
Almighty." 

Willie  President   Lincoln's  proclamation  of  eniancipation 


i*resbvti:kian  ciilkcu  511 

had  aggravated  the  horrors  of  the  war,  and  perverted  it 
from  a  defeii.se  of  the  I'niou  iuto  a  military  crusade  against 
slavery,  the  General  Assembly  of  18G4,  without  disguise, 
boldly  entered  the  political  field,  and  es])onsed  the  cause  of 
extirpating  that  domestic  institution  at  once  by  force  and 
in  blood.     It  then  made  the  following  declarations: 

"The  As.senddy,  in  the  name  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
expresses  her  thanks  to  Almighty  (lod  that  the  President  of 
the  United  States  has  i)roclaimed  the  abolition  of  slavery 
within  most  of  the  rebellious  States,  and  has  decreed  its 
extinction  by  military  force.  He  lias  ordered  the  enlistment 
of  soldiers  of  those  formerly  held  as  slaves  in  the  national 
armies.  It  is  the  I*resident's  declared  policy  not  to  consent 
to  the  reorganization  of  civil  government  within  the  seceded 
States  upon  any  other  basis  than  that  of  emancipation. 

"Our  communion  must  also  be  mindful  of  the  fact  thai 
now,  while  multitudes  of  the.se  freedmen  are  taught  the  use 
of  arms,  and  found  trained  in  military  tactics,  and  inspired 
with  the  thought  that  they  are  now  called  of  God,  to  conquer 
for  their  people  a  j)osition  among  the  races  of  mankind," 
etc. 

The  Assembly  of  1S(J.^),  after  the  close  of  the  war,  ordered 
all  ]>resbyteries  to  examine  Southern  ai)])licants  for  admis- 
sion into  the  church  on  the  subjects  of  the  rebellion  and 
slaveiy,  and  to  reject  all  who  shoubl  admit  their  agency  in 
the  revolt,  or  their  belief  that  slavery  is  an  ordinam-e  of  (Jod. 
unless  they  give  evidence  of  repentance  for  thcii'  sin  and 
renounce  their  error.    Gartin  v  Penick,  5  Bush.  (  Ky. )   110. 

Sovereignty,  Not  in  Membership.  According  to  Presbyterian 
polity,  as  established  lioni  time  immemorial,  the  only  acts 
of  sitvereignty — if  they  can  be  called  such — retained  by,  or 
])ermitl<'d  to,  the  indiNidual  mend»ers,  with  respect  to  such 
matters  as  are  here  involved,  are  the  election  of  deacons  and 
ruling  elders  when  a  particnlar  chnrcli  is  organized  and 
when  vacancies  ocoir,  and  the  selection  of  a  ruling  chh'r 
as  a  representative  of  the  pnrticniai-  chnrcli  in  the  in-csby- 
tery  and  synod.     All  oilier  powers  of  a  sovereign  cliai'a«l('r 


r.ii:        Till;  cinil  law  .\s\>  tiii:  riii  ijcii 

jiri*  vt'slcd  ill  (he  preshvlciij's  ;iim1  (MMicial  Asseiiibly.  The 
powers  llnis  vested  are,  when  exeicised,  hindiiif;  upon  all  the 
ineinbers  whelher  Hie  result  is  satisfactory  to  them  or  not. 
Coininitlee  of  Missicnis  v  I'acilic  Synod,  157  Cal.  105. 

Synod  of  Secession  Church.  A  will  made  in  1841  bequeathed 
a  fund  to  the  "Kev.  Synod  of  the  Secession  Church,  of  which 
body  the  Kev.  Dr.  Robert  Bruce  is  a  member,  and  the  pro- 
ceeds and  avails  thereof  to  be  applied  to  the  sprea<ling  of 
the  gos])el  of  Jesus  Christ  here  and  elsewhere,  and  for  the 
support  of  ]»ious  young  men  who  may  need  assistance  while 
l»rejiaring  for  the  gosi)el  ministry',  in  such  wajs  as  said 
synod  may  consider  will  best  advance  the  kingdom  of 
Christ";  and  at  the  end  of  fifty  years  the  devised  real  estate 
was  to  be  sold  by  the  executors  and  the  proceeds  appro- 
priated to  the  above  purposes  in  such  manner  as  the  synod 
or  General  Assembly  might  direct.  The  Secession  Church 
referred  to  was  interchangeably  called  the  Associate  Church, 
and  the  Associate  I'resbj^terian  Church.  The  synod  was  its 
highest  bod}-.    It  did  not  then  have  a  General  Assembly. 

In  1782  a  number  of  the  membership  of  this  church  in  this 
country  withdrew  and  entered  into  a  union  with  some  of 
the  reformed  Presbyterians  in  the  United  States,  which 
were  a  part  of  another  fraction  of  the  said  Established 
Church,  which  during  the  Revolution  of  1688  would  not  act 
therewith,  and  were  commonly  known  as  Covenanters,  and 
afterward  in  1710,  as  Kefornied  l*resbyterians,  under  the 
name  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  with  which  those 
who  continued  to  adhere  to  the  Associate  or  Seceder  Church 
and  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  formed  a  union  in  1858^ 
under  the  name  of  United  Presbyterian  Church.  In  1853 
the  synod  of  the  Associate  Presbyterian  Church  was  incor- 
porated in  l*ennsylvania.  The  above  bequest  was  paid  to 
this  synod  until  its  incorporation,  and  afterward  to  its 
treasurer  until  the  commencement  of  this  proceeding. 

In  October,  1858,  after  the  above  mentioned  union,  result- 
ing in  the  formation  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church,  cer- 
tain ministers  and  elders  met  at  Canonsburg,  Pennsylvania, 


l»KEic?BVTi:RlAN  CHUKCH  513 

and  organized  au  Associate  Synod  of  Noitli  Aniei-icu.  The 
new  organization  elected  trustees,  and  claimed  that  the  be- 
quest under  the  foregoing  will  should  be  paid  to  them.  It 
was  held  that  the  trust  was  properly  payable  to  the  original 
society,  namely,  the  Associate  Reformed  Presbyterian, 
which  had  gone  into  the  union,  forming  the  United  Presby- 
terian Church,  and  that  the  new  organization  formed  in 
]858,  had  no  interest  in  the  trust.  Ramsey  Appeal,  88  Pa. 
St.  00. 

Synod,  Powers.  A  Presbyterian  synod  has  power  to  erect 
a  presbytery,  but  no  power  to  dissolve  one  without  its  con- 
sent. Neither  has  a  synod  power  to  appoint  a  commission 
to  receive  the  submission  of  a  j)resbyter3-,  which  has  been  on 
trial  before  the  synod,  to  restore  or  dissolve  the  presbytery 
as  the  commissioners  may  think  proper.  This  is  a  delegation 
»)f  judicial  itower,  not  warranted  by  anj'  known  rules  of  dis- 
cijiline  in  the  Associate  Church.    Smith  v  Nelson,  18  Vt.  511. 

Trustees.  The  trustees  obviously  hold  possession  for  the 
use  of  the  persons  who  by  the  constitution,  usages,  and  laws 
of  the  Presbj'terian  body  are  entitled  to  that  use.  They  are 
liable  to  removal  by  the  congregation  for  whom  they  hold 
this  trust,  and  others  may  be  substituted  in  their  i)laces. 
They  have  no  personal  ownership  or  right  beyond  this,  and 
are  subject  in  their  official  relations  to  tlio  property  to  the 
control  of  the  session  of  the  church,  ^^'atson  v  Jones,  13 
Wall.  (U.  S.)   (ill). 

Unconstitutional  Deliverance  on  Political  Questions.  The 
Presbyterian  Cliuicli  lias  always  been  considcT'cd,  an<l  no 
doubt  is,  one  of  the  orthodox  Protestant  cliui-ches,  and  as 
such  forming  a  jtart  of  the  s[»iritual  kingdom  of  ChrisI  >i]H>n 
earth.  Chi-ist  aulliorilatively  declared  that  his  kingdom 
was  not  of  this  woild.  His  disciples,  as  such,  owe  allegiance 
alone  to  him  as  the  great  Head  of  the  church  ;  as  citizens  <tf 
a  republic  or  subjects  of  monarchy  or  empire  their  civil 
allegiance  was  due  to  their  respective  governments.  But  the 
kingdom  of  Christ  is  wholly  independent  of  civil  govern- 
ments.     As    the    Presbyterian    Church    is    a    part    of   this 


r.i  I        tin:  <"i\ii-  law  ani>  tiii:  cm  kcii 

s|iiritu.il  kiii^<l<)iii,  it  liinl  ii<»  ii;;lil  ;is  siidi  to  iiilcircrc  in 
(•i\il  iii;it  (ci-s.  Hnl  (lie  rr('shyt<M-i;iM  Clinrcli  ;ils<»  li.is  ;i 
\v?-ill«'ii  coiislihiticm  wliicli  llicii*  ('(•(•leMiasli<:il  jiiiliciiloii*--; 
liiivc  no  aiitliorit.v  to  violate  They  are  as  imicii  hoiiinl  hv 
llic  provisions  of  lliis  const ihitioii  as  tin;  snprcnie  law  of 
(he  (lini'cli  as  llie  Slale  and  fcdeial  j^ovcninHMits  an;  l)y 
their  respective  constitutions.  The  written  constitution  of 
the  Presbyterian  Chui-ch  contains  this  section  :  "IV.  Synods 
and  councils  are  to  handle  or  conclude  nothing  but  that 
which  is  ecclesiastical,  and  are  not  to  internie<ldle  with  civil 
affairs  which  concern  the  coninionwealth,  unless  by  way  of 
humble  petition  in  cases  extraordinary;  or  by  way  of  advice 
for  satisfaction  of  conscience,  if  they  be  thereunto  require<l 
by  the  civil  magistrate."  Church  and  state  may  cooperate 
in  the  advancement  of  objects  common  to  both,  but  each  of 
them  must  be  careful  to  act  within  its  own  sphere,  the  one 
never  intermeddling  with  the  affairs  that  properly  belong  to 
the  province  of  the  other.  It  was  held  that  the  deliverances 
of  the  General  Assend)ly,  Old  School,  during  the  Civil  War, 
on  the  subjects  of  slavery  and  loyalty  were  prohibited  by  its 
constitution  and  were  therefore  nullities  so  far  as  ])roperty 
rights  were  concei'ued.    Watson  v  Garvin,  54  ^[o.  ^53. 

Westminster  College.  The  synod  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  Missouri  was  given  the  care  and  control  of  the 
college  and  the  a])pointment  of  the  trustees.  It  was  held 
that  the  cori)oration  established  for  purely  academic  pur- 
poses, for  education  in  literature,  in  the  arts  and  sciences, 
is  in  no  sense  a  religions  corporation,  even  though  it  be 
given  into  the  care  and  under  the  management  of  a  religious 
bodj".  And  an  act  creating  such  a  corporation  was  not 
obnoxious  to  the  provision  of  the  constitution  of  Missouri 
that  no  religious  corporation  should  ever  be  established  in 
the  State.  The  property  of  the  corporation  was  exemi)t 
from  taxation.  State  ex  rel  Morris  v  Board  of  Trustees  of 
Westminster  College,  175  Mo.  52. 


PRIMITIVE  BAPTIST  CHURCH 

Described,  515. 

Described.  This  church  is  an  indepeudeut  cougregatioiial 
church.  Discipline  is  administered  by  the  body  of  the  con- 
gregation. It  has  no  body  of  canon  law  ])re.scribing  pro- 
cedure in  such  cases.  No  written  rules  prescribe  notice  or 
require  a  trial.  A  majority  of  those  members  voting  when 
the  church  sits  in  conference  determines  the  result  ui)on 
any  motion  or  resolution  disciplining  a  member.  Nance  v 
Bushby,  91  Tenn.  305. 


516 


PRIMITIVE  METHODIST  CHURCH 

Organization  and  form  of  novcrnnient,  516. 
Adherence  lo  fundamental  principiles,  517. 
Diversion  of  property,  limited,  517. 

Organization  and  Form  of  Government.  In  Cape  v  IMy- 
nuMitli  Congregational  Church,  1:50  Wis.  174,  the  court  said 
the  rdniitive  Methodist  Church  belonged  in  the  third  class 
of  religious  cori)orations  described  by  Mr.  Justice  Miller 
in  Watson  v  Jones,  13  Wall.  (U.  S.)  079,  namely,  "Where 
the  religious  corporation  or  ecclesiastical  body  holding  the 
property  is  but  a  subordinate  member  of  some  general 
church  organization  in  which  there  are  superior  ecclesias- 
tical tribunals  with  a  general  and  ultinuite  power  of  con- 
trol, more  or  less  complete,  in  some  supreme  judicatory, 
over  the  whole  membership  of  that  general  organization." 

The  Primitive  Methodist  churches  in  several  of  the 
Western  States  were  consolidated  into  what  was  called  a 
General  Conference,  knowm  as  the  Western  Conference, 
under  the  discipline  of  which  there  was  primarily  the  society 
or  congregation  as  a  unit,  having  ])Ower  to  own  property, 
and,  by  certain  prescribed  officers,  to  manage  the  ordinary 
daily  affairs.  Next  in  ascendency  a  few  neighboring  soci- 
eties were  organized  into  a  circuit  or  charge,  often,  though 
perhaps  not  always,  served  by  a  single  pastor  or  minister. 
Local  churches  sometimes  grouped  in  circuits  were  under 
t"he  general  jurisdiction  of  Quarterly  Conferences,  C()mi)Osed 
of  pastors,  officers,  and  representatives  of  the  local  societies. 
Above  this  Conference  there  was  an  Annual  Conference 
composed  of  certain  general  officers,  and  also  ministers  in 
full  connection,  and  lay  delegates  for  each  one  hundred 
members  of  a  local  society.  The  Annual  Conferences  had 
general  supervision  and  jurisdiction  of  local  societies. 

510 


PKIMITIVK  Mi:Tli()l)l«T  CHUKCH  517 

Adherence  to  Fundamental  Principles.  Several  pervious 
associated  themselves  together  for  the  worship  of  God  and 
to  hear  the  truths  of  the  gospel  expounded,  with  the  exclu- 
sive reservation  that  they  were  to  hear  these  tiuths  ex- 
pounded agreeably  to  the  doctrines  of  their  own  sect.  The 
as.sociates  also  intended  to  purchase  a  lot  and  erecl  a  build- 
ing thereon  for  worslii]),  the  expense  of  whicli  was  to  be 
provided  by  contributions.  One  of  the  deeds  authorized  the 
grantor  during  his  natural  life  to  appoint  a  minister  to 
the  church.  In  one  of  the  deeds  a  clau.se  was  inserted  ]M()- 
viding  that  ministei-s  appointed  to  the  society  should  not 
preach  any  other  doctrine  than  that  contained  in  the  late 
Rev.  John  Wesley's  Notes  upon  the  New  Testament  and  four 
volumes  of  his  Sermons  as  essential  to  salvation.  It  ^^;ls 
held  that  this  provision  of  the  deed  was  violated  l)y  thi' 
appointment  of  an  Episcopalian  as  minister.  Cond>e  v 
Brazier,  2  Desaus.  (S.  C.)  431. 

Right  to  secede  from  main  body  denied.  American  Trim- 
itive  Society  v  I'illing,  -1  Zab.  (X.  J.)  GS:*). 

Diversion  of  Property,  Limited.  The  local  society  was  orig- 
inally incori)ora((Ml  as  a  bi-anch  of  the  Primitive  Methodist 
Church,  connected  witli  the  Western  Conference.  A  lai-ge 
majority  of  the  society  determined  to  change  its  (U'n.(,niina- 
tional  relations,  and,  accordingly,  organized  a  new  society 
to  be  allied  with  the  Congiegadonal  <lenominati(»n  under  the 
name  of  the  Plymouth  Congregational  Churdi.  A  contro- 
versy arose  between  the  two  societies  relating  to  tlie  iliunli 
property. 

By  a  rule  of  the  Primitive  Methodist  Church,  all  |)r(»p('rty 
is  held  subject  to  the  uses  of  each  .society  wlien  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  dis(i]»Iine  and  usages  of  tlie  Primitive 
Methodist  Church,  and  in  case  a  local  society  should  <-ease 
to  exist,  or  exist  contrary  to  the  usages  and  disciidine  of 
the  Primitive  Methodist  Church,  then  its  i»ro|)erty  sho\d<l 
pass  to  the  Conference  trustees,  to  be  held  for  the  benefit 
of  anj''  organized  Primitive  Methodist  Society,  in  tlie  j>lace 
where  the  real  estate  is  situated  or,  if  tliis  be  ini]>racticable, 


:.is        tin:  ri\  I  l  law   am*  iiii:  cimi;*!! 

Ilicii  l<»  he  licM  lor  llic  ;^('li('l';il  |Mir|M)Scs  ol  llir  cliiiitli  :iiii| 
niitlcr  llic  <lii('(iioii  ol"  (lie  AiiiiikiI  < 'oiild'enco.  'I'liis  \\;is 
lu'ld  lo  rcsliici  llic  use  of  llic  pi-upcrly  in  (picstioii  to  a 
society  siilijcct  lo  llic  (liscipliiic  :iii<l  siippoi-t  in;;  the  <loc- 
li-ineol'tlic  I'riiiiil  ive  Mcllioflist  (Iciioiiiiiui  t  i(tii.  Tlic  I)o<l<4e- 
ville  society,  with  three  others,  const  jIhIcmI  ;i  ciicnit.  which 
Wiis  uiuler  the  ^enei'sil  snpei-vision  of  ;i  (^niirterly  ('(»nfei-- 
ence  of  various  represen  In  lives  aini  olticeis  of  the  local 
cluii-ches.  The  i-ei»n<liation  by  the  I'riniitive  Methodist  So- 
ciety of  its  sul)niission  to  the  Annual  Conference,  ami  set- 
ting itself  njt  as  the  snprenie  authority  over  its  own  affairs 
and  over  its  nienihei-s  in  matters  religious  and  secular,  was  a 
departure  from  the  use  ami  i)urpose  for  which  the  ])artial 
possession  in  tliis  property  was  originally  conferred  on  the 
society,  ami  to  which  use  such  i>roj)erty  was  limited,  and, 
therefore,  that  it  exceeded  the  I'ight  or  po\\er  over  that 
property  had  by  either  the  corporation  or  its  governing 
officers.  Cajie  v  IMymouth  Congregational  Church,  l.'JO  Wis. 
174. 


PROFANITY 

Defined,  519. 

Defined.  Any  words  iiiiixntiiiji-  an  inijtrtHatioii  of  (li\int' 
vengeance,  or  iinjilyiiig  divine  condemnation  so  usrd  a>  to 
become  a  public  nuisance,  wonbl  nnike  out  the  otVense  of 
profanity,  although  the  name  of  the  l>eity  be  not  used. 
Gaines  v  State,  7  Lea  (Tenn.j  4^10. 


619 


PROPERTY 

Abaiuloninp  doctrines,  effect,  521. 

Adverse  possession,  /J'Jl. 

Ahuska,  effect  of  transfer  from  Russia  to  Ignited  States,  522. 

Contract,  522. 

Dedication,  diversion,  522. 

Dedication,  523. 

Dedication  to  reli{j;ious  uses,  523. 

Denominational  ase,  523. 

Diversion,  524. 

Division  of  society,  527. 

Execution,  528. 

Gospel  and  school  lots,  529. 

Illinois  rule,  529. 

Joint  u.se,  529. 

Lay  control,  Pcnn.sylvania  rule,  531. 

Limitation  of  amount,  right  to  excess,  531. 

Majority's  right,  532. 

Member's  right,  533. 

Members  unlawfully  expelled,  right  to  be  heard,  533. 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  separation,  effect  on  title,  533. 

Minority's  right,  534. 

Mob,  destruction  by,  action  for  damages,  534. 

Object  and  use,  534. 

Parish,  Massachusetts  rule,  534. 

Pastor's  salary,  land  may  be  sold  to  pay,  534. 

Priest's  occupancy,  535. 

Pulpit,  cannot  be  seized  on  execution,  535. 

Removal  of  church  edifice,  535. 

Reversion,  535. 

Reversion  on  discontinuance  of  sjiecifiiHl  use,  536. 

Sale,  537. 

Sale  for  debts,  538. 

Sale  or  mortgage,  539. 

Sale,  reinvesting  proceeds,  539. 

Sale,  when  court  order  not  necessary,  540. 

Secession,  effect  on  title,  540. 

Sewing  circle,  funds,  541. 

520 


I'ROrERTY  521 

Special  trust,  effect,  541. 

.Sunday  school  building,  542. 

•Su-spending  power  of  alienation,  542. 

Surplus  on  sale,  542. 

Taxation,  543. 

Title,  how  held,  543. 

Title,  when  not  affected  by  exclusion  of  society,  543. 

Trust,  limitation  by  testator,  543. 

Trustees,  general  rights,  543. 

Unconditional  gift,  544. 

Unincorporated  society,  544. 

Vestry  room,  544. 

Abandoning  Doctrines,  Effect.  II"  the  ineiiibcrs  of  a  church 
abandon  the  tenets  of  the  ehiireh,  they  lose  their  interest  in 
the  property  of  the  clinrch.  If  thev  adhere  to  the  doctrines 
of  tlie  church,  but  abandon  tlie  orsianization,  they  also  h)se 
their  interest  in  the  ]»roperty  of  the  churcli.  Mack  v  Kinie, 
121)  Ga.  1. 

Adverse  Possession.  This  coriK)ratioii  acquired  real  jn-oi)- 
erty  in  ISdo,  and  at  the  time  of  the  comnieuceuient  of  this 
action  liad  been  in  nninterrni)ted  possession  of  it  for  more 
tlian  forty  years.  The  society  \vas  deemed  to  liave  ac([uired 
the  title  by  adverse  ])ossession,  notwithstanding  tlie  i)i"o- 
visions  of  article  38  of  the  Maryland  bill  of  rights,  ^vhi<•h  in 
elfect,  requires  tlie  sanction  of  the  Le<iislature  to  a  convey- 
ance to  a  religious  society,  which  sanction  had  not  been 
obtained,    Dickerson  v  Kirk,  105  Md.  60S. 

Wliere  a  religious  society  had  had  uninterrupted  j)os.ses- 
sion  of  land  in  conlioversy  for  thirty  years  or  more,  using 
it  as  its  own,  it  wonbl  be  jiresunied,  in  the  al)sence  of  an 
existing  deed  to  the  land,  that  ])laintilV's  entry  \vas  under  a 
]Mircliase,  an<l  that  its  grantor  ]ia<l  a  lawful  right  to  convey. 
Penny  v  Central  Coal  and  Coke  Company,  138  Fed.  (Ark.i 
709. 

While  a  religions  corporation  cannot  by  mere  rescdution 
divest  itself  of  the  title  to  real  estate,  a  seitaration  of  a 
cliurch  into  two  societies  and  the  transfer  l>y  the  i»arent 
society  to  the  new  society  of  the  church  edifice  an«i  other 


r.L'L'  'I'lli;   ('l\IL    LAW     AM»   '11 1  I!   ("Ill    K<ll 

]>i()|i('rl_v  (»((ii|»i<'<l  l»y  tlic  iiillcr  will  ;il  1<msI  I;i\  llir  i'i»niul;i- 
lion  (»r  ;i  li^lil  lu  luhcrsc  |Miss<'ssinii,  :iii<l  if  tlic  new  scxicly 
;irt<'rw;ir(l  Imm-oiiics  iinorpoiiitcd,  this  ii<lv<'rs(;  possession 
coiiliiiiM's  ill  IJM'  coi-iKH-jilioii  lliiis  loriii('<l,  ;iii(l  Ili(>  ri^^lit  iiimv 
thoreby    liiicn    into    ;i    coiiiplctc    lillc.      Kcrorincd    ("Inncli, 

(5;inii|.viiic,  V  Sciiooicijifi,  (;r>  X.  V.  i:;i. 

Alaska,  Effect  of  Transfer  from  Russia  to  United  States.  Sec; 
Holes  OH  Alaska  and  Kii.ssian  toleration  in  the  julith;  on 
Liilherans. 

Contract,  'i'he  )»i'o])ei-1y  of  a  i-eli;;ioiis  soeiet}'  is  vested  in 
the  corporation  itself  and  not  in  the  trustees  as  trustees. 
The  cor}tor;ition  may  make  an  exeeiitoi-y  coiitraet  for  the 
sale  of  the  ]>roiterty,  siihject  to  the  approval  of  the  court. 
The  power  of  tlie  court  is  a  re«iiilatiiig  power  for  tlie  pur- 
pose of  i)reventiii<;  a  viohition  of  the  trust  for  the  ]»articular 
use  to  wliich  tlie  jtroperty  is  dedicated,  and  to  .see  that  Ihe 
proceeds  of  sale  are  invested  for  the  like  uses  and  the  order 
of  the  court  in  such  cases,  authorizing  the  sale  is  permis- 
sive only  and  not  mandatory.  When  the  rights  of  the  jmr- 
chaser  liave  become  so  far  fixed  that  he  holds  an  agreement 
diilj'  executed  by  tlie  corporation,  and  the  requisite  sanction 
of  the  court  has  been  obtained,  he  can  be  compelled  to  jiay 
for  tlie  land  and  is  entitled  to  a  conveyance.  It  is  usually 
])referable,  first,  to  negotiate  a  sale,  agree  ui)on  the  terms, 
and  then  lay  the  agreement  before  the  court,  ami  l)y  tlie 
order  obtain  an  approval  thereof  and  authority  to  con- 
vey and  a  direction  for  the  investment  of  the  ]>rocee<ls  as 
the  statute  requires.  Bowen  v  Irish  Presbyterian  Congre- 
gation, X.  Y.,  «  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  245.  See  also  Muck  v  Hitcli- 
cock.  140  A.  I).  (X.  Y.)  32o  as  to  ]»reliminary  contract  of 
I)urchase  and  its  elfect. 

Dedication.  Diversion.  A  i)erson  owning  property  in  his 
own  right  may  dedicate  such  pro])erty,  by  way  of  trust,  to 
supi)ort  and  pi-opagate  any  detinite  doctrines  and  princi])les, 
])rovided  it  does  not  violate  any  law  of  morality  and  sulli- 
ciently  exi)resses  in  the  instrument  by  which  the  dedication 
is  made  the  objeit  of  the  trust.     In  such  cases  it  is  the  duty 


rR()IM:KTV  T)!':: 

of  the  courts  to  see  that  the  j)ioi)eity  so  dedicated  is  not 
diverted  from  the  trust  attaching  to  it,  and  so  long  as  there 
are  persons  in  interest,  standing  in  such  a  relation  to  the 
property  as  that  they  have  a  riglit  to  direct  its  control,  they 
may  prevent  the  diversion  of  the  property  to  any  use  differ- 
ent from  that  inten<k'd  by  the  donor.  If  such  trust  is  con- 
veyed to  a  religious  denomination  or  congregation,  it  is  not 
in  the  power  of  a  majority  of  that  denomination  or  congre- 
gation, however  large  the  majority  may  be,  by  reason  of  a 
change  of  religious  views,  to  carry  the  property  thus  dedi- 
cated to  the  supi)ort  of  a  new  and  different  doctrine. 

Where  it  is  alleged,  in  a  case  properly  pending,  tliat  j)rop- 
erty  thus  dedicated  is  being  diverted  from  the  use  intended 
by  the  donor  by  teaching  a  doctrine  different  from  that  con- 
temjdated  at  the  time  the  donation  was  made,  however  deli- 
cate and  difficult  it  may  be,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  court  to 
inquire  whether  the  party  accused  of  violating  the  trust  is 
teaching  a  doctrine  so  far  at  variance  with  that  intended 
as  to  defeat  the  objects  of  the  trust,  and  if  tlie  charge  is 
found  true,  to  make  such  orders  in  tlie  i)remises  as  will 
secure  a  faithful  execution  of  the  trust  confided.  Land)  v 
Cain,  120  Ind.  4S(;. 

Dedication.  In  Atkin.son  v  liell,  IS  Tex.  474.  the  court 
sustained  a  parol  (le<lication  to  an  unincorporated  Melliod 
ist  Society  of  land  on  which  a  church  was  afterwai'd  erected 
and  occupie<l  by  the  society  many  years. 

Dedication  to  Religious  Uses.  That  i)roperty  may  be  dedi- 
cated to  i>ublic  or  religious  uses  is  well  established,  b(»th 
in  civil  and  common  law.  In  order  to  sustain  a  dedica- 
tion of  property  it  is  not  necessary  that  there  should  be  a 
certain  grantee,  to  whose  use  it  is  nmde,  nor  is  it  essential 
that  the  right  or  use  should  be  vested  in  a  corpora le  Itody; 
it  may  exist  in  the  i)ubli«-,  and  have  no  other  limitation  than 
the  wants  of  the  community  at  large.  Antones  et  al  v 
Kslava's  Heirs.  !>  Port.  (Ala.)  .■')L*T. 

Denominational  Use.  IMopciiy  wliicli  is  devot»»d  io  liic 
]>ni*|)os('s  of  a  gi\('n  i-cligious  <n-g;iiii/,;i(  ion  iiinst  be  used  I'm- 


r.L'i        tin;  ('I\il  law  and  tiii:  ciii  kcii 

llie  plllpusc  lo  wliicli  it  is  dcvdlcd,  :iii<l  w  licic  the  (iiiilrol- 
liiijj;  aullioril y  of  llic  (ir<;aniz;ili(tii  iwlicllicr  il  h«'  a  majority 
of  the  coil jfrejiii lion  of  tliosc  clnii-clics  Iiaviii;;  a  (•oii<;r('<;a- 
tioiial  form  of  jjovenimciit,  or  the  lii^ilicst  coml  of  a  cliurch 
in  those  churclies  which  liave  <litfer(Mit  tiiltniials,  with 
ai»i>('als  from  one  to  the  other)  engages  in  a  palpable  at tcmjtt 
lo  divert  tlie  jiroperty  to  a  purpose  utterly  variant  from 
that  to  wliich  it  was  originally  devoted,  the  civil  courts  will 
interfere,  even  at  the  instance  of  a  minority,  in  cases  where 
the  form  of  church  government  is  congregational,  or  at  the 
instance  of  the  dissenters  without  regard  to  property,  where 
the  form  of  government  is  other  than  congregational,  and 
lirotect  them  in  their  jiroperty  rights  against  those  who, 
without  authority,  are  attempting  to  carry  the  property 
along  lines  that  are  utterly  variant  from  the  purpose  for 
which  the  organization  was  formed.  But  in  all  cases  of 
this  character  it  must  apjiear  that  the  governing  authorities 
of  the  church  have  abandoned  the  tenets  and  doctrines  of 
the  original  organization.  Whether  they  have  so  abandoned 
them  is  an  ecclesiastical  question,  and  if,  under  the  form  of 
government  of  the  church,  there  is  a  tribunal  of  any  char- 
acter erected  for  the  decision  of  these  questions,  the  civil 
courts  will  not  undertake  to  revise  or  review  the  judgment 
of  this  tribunal,  jirovided  the  question  is  of  such  a  character 
that  it  would  admit  of  dispute,  and  would  therefore  be 
jiroper  for  decision  by  the  ecclesiastical  tribunal.  Mack  v 
Kime.  12!)  Oa.  1. 

Diversion.  Where  a  congregation  has  been  organized  and 
holds  its  iirojierty  as  a  constituent  part  of  any  particular 
religious  denomination,  or  in  subordination  to  the  govern- 
ment of  any  jtarticular  church,  it  cannot,  without  just 
cause,  sever  itself  from  such  connection  or  government.  If 
it  does  so,  it  necessarily  forfeits  its  rights  and  projierty  to 
those  of  the  organization  who  maintain  the  original  status. 
McAuley's  xVjijieal,  77  Pa.  o07. 

A  minority  have  the  right  to  insist  upon  carrying  out  the 
proposition  for  which  the  church  or  society  was  organized, 


I'ROl'ERTY  525 

aud  a  uiajority  will  ii<»l  he  permitted  to  divert  the  coiuiuoii 
property  to  other  uses,  or  to  use  it  for  the  support  and  main 
feuauce  of  doctrines  or  a  polity  essentially  at  variance  with 
its  orij;;inal  constitution.    Schradi  v  Dornfeld,  52  Minn.  405. 
See  Bonhani  v  Harris,  145  S.  W.  Kil). 

If  i>roj»erty  be  conveyed  to  trustees  for  the  use  of  the  cor- 
poration, and  its  organic  act  proclaims  the  religious  belief 
of  its  members,  the  sect  to  which  it  belongs,  so  as  to  iudicate 
clearly  the  fjarticular  use  intended  by  the  grantor,  or  the 
conveyance  expressly  indicates  the  limitations  upon  such 
use,  or  if  a  corporate  organization  be  formed  as  a  society 
of  a  particular  church  and  it  becomes  possessed  of  property 
in  any  way  in  trust  to  that  end,  in  either  case  the  property 
is  held  in  trust  for  the  use  so  indicated,  and  such  use  cannot 
he  j»erverted  without  consent  of  all  the  i)arties  to  the  trust. 
Franke  v  Mann,  100  Wis.  118. 

Where  a  majority  of  a  religious  society  has  withdrawn 
therefrom  and  organized  a  new  church  of  a  dilferent  de- 
nomination, the  minority,  adhering  to  the  original  society, 
are  entitled  to  the  use  and  occupation  of  the  church  build- 
ing held  in  trust  for  said  society,  and  the  new  church  and 
its  trustees  may  be  restrained  from  interfering  with  such 
use.  Neither  seceding  members,  though  a  majority,  nor  any 
majority  of  a  religious  society,  no  nmtter  how  fully  inxeslcd 
with  all  corporate  powers,  have  a  right  to  divert  its  i)rop- 
erty  from  the  uses  defined  and  limited  by  the  grant  of  such 
proi)erty  to  it,  or  the  ])ur])Oses  of  its  organization  as  regards 
the  particular  religious  faith  it  was  organized  to  promote. 
Cape  v  Plymouth  f'ongregatioual  Church,  117  Wis.  150,  130 
Wis.  174;  see  Ajjostolic  Il(»liness  Union  of  Post  Falls  v 
Knudson,  21   Idaho  58t). 

When  property  has  been  acquired,  whether  by  gift  or  pur- 
chase, for  the  maintenance  and  su]>i)ort  of  the  faith  of  any 
recognized  denomination  or  church,  every  member  of  the 
association  acquiring  it,  corporate  or  unincorporated,  has 
a  right  to  resist  its  diversion  to  other  antagonistic  uses, 
whether  secular  or  religious,  and  therefore  those  who  hold 


r,L»(;        Tin:  r\\\  l  law  .\m>  tiii;  rnriicii 

|Ih>  liilc  or  ((iiiliol,  wlicthfr  ;i  r(ii|i(»i;i  I  ion.  or  the  oHi(  crs  of 
the  nssociiil  ion.  hold  il  <li;irii('(|  uilli  :i  IimisI  to  wpply  it  to 
llic  uses  lor  which  it  w;is  iiccjiiii'cd,  iind  not  to  inconsistent 
ones.  Miiiicii  v  IOvanj^('lic;il  (!retMl  f'oiij^rcgation,  Mil- 
waukee, i:;--'  Wis.  (mO. 

Tlie  New  York  act  of  1875,  chai).  7JI,  provides  that  the 
Id-opertv  and  revenues  of  every  corporation  formed  under 
section  three  of  the  act  of  18Ki,  shall  be  applied  by  the  trus- 
tees for  the  benefit  of  such  corpoi-ation  accordinj;  to  the  dis- 
cipline, rules,  and  usajifes  of  the  denomination  to  which  the 
church,  the  members  of  the  corporation,  belong,  and  for- 
bids the  diverting:;  of  the  same  to  any  other  pur])ose.  These 
provisions  distinctly  recognize  the  denominational  char- 
acter of  the  corporations  referrefl  to,  and  the  existence  of 
a  church  as  an  organized  body,  to  which  any  such  corpora- 
tion may  belong,  to  whose  uses  its  temjtoralities  may  be 
devoted,  and  for  any  diversion  or  attempted  diversion  for 
which  from  such  uses  an  ample  remedy  is  given  in  a  coui-t 
of  equity.  A  remedy  under  this  statute  may  be  invoked  by 
any  member  of  the  corporation  and  against  the  trustees  of 
the  corporation.  The  act  of  1S7.~)  applies  to  section  six  as 
well  as  under  section  three  of  the  act  of  ISlo.  First  He- 
formed  Presbyterian  Church  v  Bowden,  14  Abb.  N.  C. 
(N.  Y.)  85<;. 

"Where  a  church  is  endowed  with  i)roi>erty  for  the  sup- 
port of  a  particular  faith,  and  is  subsequently  incorporated, 
it  is  not  comj>etent  for  a  majority  of  the  church,  the  congre- 
gation, or  the  cori)orators,  or  of  a  majority'  of  each  com- 
bined, to  appropriate  such  property  for  the  maintenance  of 
a  different  faith.  The  (piestiou  of  the  particular  religious 
faith  or  belief  is  not  material  in  such  cases,  except  so  far  as 
the  court  is  called  upon  to  execute  the  trust,  and  to  that 
end  it  merely  inquires  what  was  the  faith  or  belief,  to  main- 
tain which  the  fund  was  bestowed."  Kniskern  v  Lutheran 
Church,  1  Sand.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  439. 

The  title  to  the  church  i)ro])erty  of  a  divided  congregation 
is  in  that  part  of  it  which  is  acting  in  harmony  with   its 


PROPERTY  527 

own  law;  and  the  ecclesiastical  laws,  usages,  customs,  ami 
principles  which  were  accepted  among  them  before  the  dis- 
pute began  are  the  standard  lor  determining  which  party  is 
right.    McGinnis  v  Watson,  41  Pa.  St.  9. 

Division  of  Society.  A  Presbjteriau  church  separated  into 
two  factions,  one  joining  the  New  School  and  one  joining 
the  Old  School.  It  was  held  that  the  i)roi)erty  should  be 
divided  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  church  members  and 
pewholders  in  each  society.    Niccolls  v  Rugg,  47  111.  47. 

The  settled  rule  of  the  civil  courts  in  cases  of  disorgan- 
ization and  factional  divisions  of  an  ecclesiastical  body  is 
that  the  title  to  church  ]»roperty  is  in  that  i»art  of  it  which 
is  acting  in  harmony  with  its  own  law,  and  the  ecclesiastical 
laws  and  usages,  customs,  and  principles  which  were  ac- 
cepted among  them  befoi-e  the  disjuite  began,  and  the  stand- 
ards for  determining  which  party  is  right.  The  right  of 
ownership  abides  with  that  faction,  great  or  small,  which 
is  in  favor  of  the  government  of  the  church  in  operation 
with  which  it  was  connected  at  the  time  the  trust  was  de- 
clared. The  court  will  adjudge  the  property  to  the  mem- 
bers, however  few  in  nund>er  they  may  be,  who  adhere  to  the 
form  of  church  government,  or  acknowledge  the  church  con- 
nection for  which  the  property  was  acquired.  Reorganized 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints  v  Church  of 
Christ,  (U)  Fed.  Rep.  !»:{7.     (W.  1).  Mo.  Cir.  Ct.) 

The  title  to  the  church  pro])ert3'  of  a  congregation  that  is 
divided  is  in  that  part  of  the  congregation  that  is  in  har- 
mony with  its  own  hiws,  usages,  and  customs  as  accepted 
by  the  body  before  the  division  took  place,  and  wlio  adhere 
to  the  regular  orgaiii/,:ili()Ti.  St.  Paul's  Ref.  Church  v  Ilowei*. 
191  Pa.  St.  :50(i. 

The  title  to  church  property  of  a  divided  congregation  is 
in  that  part  of  it  which  adheres  to  the  original  organization, 
and  is  acting  in  harmony  with  its  own  laws  and  the  eccle- 
siastical customs,  usages,  and  principles  which  were  ac- 
cej)te(l  among  them  before  the  dispute  began.  But  this  nde 
is  subject  to  the  modilication  that  church  judicatories  may 


ni's        tin;  cinil  law  am»  'iiii:  ciukcii 

iiKikc  such  rlianjics  in  (lie  l;i\\s,  usjigcs,  ;i!nl  ciistonis  ;is  tli'-y 
m;iy  hy  their  laws  be  iiullioriy-ed  to  make,  or  wliidi  iiic  not 
fiUMlanicntal  (l(»]>arlur('s  fi-oiii  tlic  ijcru'ral  |>lan  and  purposes 
of  the  organization,  and  tlic  furthei-  power  to  enforce  upon 
the  subonlinatc  nicndx'rs  of  the  orj^anization  due  observa- 
tion of  tliose  chaujics  and  modi tications.  rbii'k  v  l>i-own, 
108  S.  W.  421    (Texas). 

Laud  was  conveyed  to  the  local  society  on  \\lii(  h  to  erect 
a  cliurcli  eclifice,  and  a  building  was  erected  accoi-diuj;ly. 
After  occupying  the  proi)erty  several  years  a  division  arose 
ill  the  congregation  over  the  alleged  unsoundness  of  faith  of 
a  person  sekn-ted  as  ])astor.  Tliis  <livision  resulted  in  the 
exclusion  of  tliis  ])astor  and  some  members  from  the  society. 
Thereafter  each  party,  namel.y,  those  who  had  joined  in  the 
exclusion,  and  tho.se  wlio  were  excluded,  claimed  tl-.e  ]»os- 
sessioii  of  the  iu-oi)erty,  and  the  riglit  to  control  it.  The 
party  which  expelled  the  defendants  kept  possession  of  the 
property,  and  refused  to  allow  its  use  by  the  excluded  p"r- 
sons,  and  for  this  purpose  kept  the  building  locked.  Mem- 
bers of  the  excluded  party  obtained  entrance  through  a 
window,  and,  opening  the  door,  jtermitted  other  members 
of  that  part}^  to  enter,  and  religious  services  were  held 
therein.  The  party  which  had  exercised  the  power  of  expul- 
sion was  entitled  to  the  possession  of  the  property,  and  the 
persons  excluded  had  no  right  In'  mere  acts  of  trespass  to 
obtain  possession  of  the  property  and  assume  to  manage  and 
control  it.  The  majority  party  were  re])resented  by  deacons 
who  were  the  trustees  of  this  society,  and  had  charge  of  its 
ju'opei'ty  and  records.     Fulbright  v  Higgenbotliam,  133  Mo. 

()(;8. 

A  division  occurring  among  the  members  of  the  church,  it 
was  lield  that  the  faction  which  adhered  to  the  general  faith 
and  doctrine  of  the  denomination  was  entitled  to  continue 
in  possession  and  control  of  the  church  property.  Smith  et 
al  V  Pedigo  et  al  145  Ind.  392. 

Execution.  A  church  and  the  lot  upon  which  it  is  erected 
are  private  proj)erty,  and  subject  to  levy  and  sale  in   the 


PROPERTY  529 

same  manner  as  otliei-  private  piopeity.  Presbyterian  Con- 
gregation, I*]rie  V  Colt's  executors,  2  Grant's  Cas.  (Pa.)  75. 

Gospel  and  School  Lots.  In  New  llanii)sliire  lots  reserved 
for  the  snpitoit  of  the  ministry  and  for  scliools  were,  except 
as  to  a  lot  set  apart  for  the  tirst  minister,  deemed  the  prop- 
erty of  the  town,  and  when  sncli  lots  were  sold  the  proceeds 
belonged  to  the  town  and  not  to  its  inhabitants.  It  was, 
therefore,  hehl  that  a  religions  society  organized  after  the 
resei-vation  of  tlie  lots  conld  not  legally  claim  a  division  of 
the  proceeds  derived  from  llie  sale  of  land  reserved  for  the 
.supi)ort  of  the  iiiinislry,  or  any  ]>art  of  snch  proceeds,  to  the 
se])arate  nse  of  the  society.  The  j)roperiy  belonged  to  the 
town  as  a  corporation,  and  not  to  any  nnnd>er  of  its  inhab- 
itants.   Baj>tist  Society,  AViltou  v  Wilton,  2  N.  H.  508. 

Illinois  Rule.  Tn  Illinois  the  trustees  of  an  incorjjorated 
religions  society  or  association  do  not  hold  the  ]»ro|»(Mty,  in 
the  absence  of  a  declared  or,  at  least,  clearly  i!ii|tlicd  trust, 
for  any  church  in  general,  nor  for  the  benefit  of  any  pecnliar 
docti'ines  or  tenets  of  faith  and  jtractice  in  religious  matters, 
lint  solely  for  the  society  or  congregation  whose  otiicers  they 
are;  and  they  are  not,  in  the  <lischarge  of  theii*  diities,  snb- 
ject  to  the  control  of  an  ecclesiastical  judicatory.  The 
pro])erty  b(dougs  to  the  society  or  congregation  so  long  as 
the  cor]»oration  exists,  and  when  it  ceases  to  exist  the  projt- 
erty  belongs  to  the  donors  or  their  heirs — and  this  conclu- 
sively distinguishes  this  pro|)erty  from  |>roj>erty  held  in 
trust  for  tiu'  benelit  of  a  ])articnlar  religioiis  denomination. 
Where  in'0])erty  is  held  in  ti-nst  f«)r  the  benelit  of  a  partic- 
ular religions  demnninat  ion  the  dissolntion  of  the  local 
corporation  can  in  now  ise  affect  the  trust  so  long  as  the  reli- 
gious denomination  has  an  existence,  for  it  is  to  it.  and  nt»t 
to  the  coipoi'atoi's,  lliat  the  nse  belongs.  Calkins  v  ( 'heney, 
92  111.  4(i:;. 

Joint  Use.  Where  the  constitution  and  by  laws  of  a  chnrch 
corporation  comjjosed  of  members  of  two  nationalities  pro- 
vide for  alternate  nse  of  tlie  chnrcli  ]iroj)eity  for  sejiai-ate 
services  by  members  of  either  nationality,  nuMnbers  of  one 


r.:!()        Tin:  ("i\  I  L  LAW  AM*  Till;  <iii  i:(  II 

ii;il  ioimlit  y  lire  <'iilitl('(|  to  siicii  use  dT  llic  rliiinli  |iin|MM'ty 
williniil  ;i|i|ili(;il  i(ni  to  tiic  <((r|i(ir;i  Ic  lioiinl  (if  tnislceH  by 
any  (H"<;;iiiiz('(l  |K)rli(iii  of  (Ih*  corpoinlc  slo(  klioldfi-s  or  iiiem- 
bors.     l'('l«'i'son  v  Clii-isliniison,  IS  S.  I).  470. 

A  <1c'(m1  w:is  iikkIc  to  tiiistecs  "for  (he  use  of  the  I'resby- 
tci'ijin  iunl  LntluM-iiii  (•oii<:;i-('^ii(ions  respect ively,  as  at  ]»res- 
eiit  oi-<^ani/.(Ml,  etc.,  but  if  eillicr  coiij^i-ejiatioii  deem  it  con- 
(liicivi^  to  their  interests,  the  jiroperty  be  e(|nital)ly  divichMl 
by  a  eoniiiiittee  of  itnpai-tial  persons  sehn-ted  by  both  con- 
gregations." One  congi-egation,  having  taken  exclusive  pos- 
session of  the  property,  hehl  that  it  was  a  dispute  and  divi- 
sion between  members  of  an  unincorporated  society  in  rela- 
tion to  tlieir  T'ights  and  i)i-ivileges,  and  not  merely  as  tenents 
in  common  of  real  estate,  and  equity  had  jurisdiction  to 
restore  those  excluded  to  their  riglits.  Kisor  Appeal,  (il* 
Pa.  428. 

Land  was  conveyed  to  the  trustees  of  the  Missionary  Baj)- 
tist  Society  witli  a  ])roviso  that  the  land  was  to  be  used  for 
church  purposes,  but  was  to  be  controlled  by  the  trustees  of 
the  Baptist  Society  to  be  used  by  such  Baptist  Society  or 
by  any  other  Protestant  denomination  to  preach  in  w'hen 
not  used  by  said  missionary  Baptist ;  to  be  used  for  moral 
lectures  when  not  used  for  religious  work.  Sunday  school 
was  to  be  conducted  before  or  after  preaching.  This  lan- 
guage was  construed  to  give  to  the  Baptist  Church  the  first 
right  to  use  the  property  for  all  religious  purposes,  but  that 
when  it  was  not  being  so  used  by  the  Baptists,  and  was  idle, 
it  could  be  used  lor  any  religious  rite  by  any  other  Protes- 
tant denomination.  It  appeared  that  the  house  of  worship 
was  erected  from  contiibutions  made  by  members  of  several 
denominations  and  by  persons  not  connected  with  any 
denomination.  Sharjj  v  Benton,  23  Ky.  Law  Rep.  876,  hold- 
ing that  the  Christian  Church  was  entitled  to  use  the  house 
for  its  regular  service,  when  the  house  was  not  otherwise 
occupied. 

Land  was  conveyed  for  church  purposes  on  the  exi)ress 
condition  that  the  church  to  be  situated  on  the  land  was  to 


PROPERTY  531 

be  open  at  all  times,  when  not  nsed  by  the  Baptist  de- 
nomination, to  all  evangelical  orders  of  Christians.  The 
snbscription  list  npon  which  was  raised  the  money  to  erect 
the  bnilding,  provided  that  "said  house  when  completed 
should  be  free  for  the  use  of  all  evangelical  orders  of  Chris- 
tians when  not  used  by  the  Baptists."  After  several  years 
of  such  general  use  the  Baptists  sought  to  prevent  the  use 
of  the  building  by  another  order.  It  was  held  that  the 
Baptists  had  the  i)reference,  but  that  when  the  building 
was  not  in  use  by  them  it  might  be  used  by  other  evangel- 
ical denominations,  and  an  i)ijunction  was  granted  restrain- 
ing the  Bai)tists  from  interfering  with  the  use  of  the  build- 
ing by  the  Methodists  and  evangelical  order  claiming  the 
right  to  use  the  building  when  it  was  not  in  use  by  the 
Baptists.    Tomlin  v  Blunt,  'M   111.  App.  2:^4. 

Lay  Control,  Pennsylvania  Rule.  The  Pennsylvania  act  of 
April  20,  1855,  required  that  "all  property  which  the  cor- 
poration shall  in  any  way  acquire  shall  be  taken,  held,  and 
enure,  subject  to  the  control  and  disposition  of  the  lay 
members  of  the  society,  or  of  such  officers  thereof  as  shall 
be  com))Osed  of  a  majority  of  lay  mend)ers,  citizens  of  l*enn- 
sylvania,  having  a  controlling  })ower;"  and  this  provision 
was  to  be  included  in  the  charter.  In  Alexander  Presby- 
terian Church,  Philadelphia,  oO  Pa.  St.  154,  the  proposed 
charter  was  rejected  because  it  did  not  contain  this  provi- 
sion.   See  also  Re  St.  Paul's  Church,  30  Pa.  St.  152. 

By  the  Pennsylvania  act  of  1855  all  chnrch  cliailers  were 
recpiired  to  contain  a  clanse  snbjectiiig  all  (he  clmrcli  prop- 
erty to  the  control  of  the  lay  niciubers  of  the  ((trjxtralion  or 
church,  thi'ongh  constituted  oliicers,  a  )iiajorily  of  whom 
shall  be  citizens  of  Pennsylvania.  Cushman  v  Church  of 
Good  Shepherd,  188  Pa.  St.  438. 

Limitation  of  Amount,  Right  to  Excess.  In  Hanson  v  Little 
Sisters  of  the  Pool-,  Til  Md.  i:!l.  it  was  held  tli:it  the  (piestion 
as  to  the  capacity  of  the  society  to  take  property  in  excess 
of  the  amount  |»rescribed  by  its  charter  could  not  be  raise<l 
collaterally,  nor  in  a  [»roceediug  i'ov  the  construction  of  a 


5:{2        Tin:  cin  il  i>a\\  .wh  Tin;  ciukch 

will,  hill  oiilv  ill  ;i  tlirccl  itrocccdiii^-  l»y  11h;  State.  The  gift 
lo  (he  society  was  not  void  on  its  face,  aiul  nuiKt  be  held 
valid  as  to  all  the  world  nnlil  it  has  been  determined  at 
the  instance  of  the  State  that  the  charter  has  been  violated. 
The  corporation  can  take  j)ro|)erty  to  any  amount,  but  can 
hold  it,  as  against  Hit'  State,  only  to  the  amount  provided 
by  its  chai-ter. 

Majority's  Right.  In  Berrymau  v  Keesc,  11  B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 
287,  the  coui't  sustained  an  action  by  the  majority  against 
a  niinoiity  of  the  <hurch,  which  had  been  excluded  there- 
i'l'oni,  to  j)r('\<'iit  the  occui)ancy  of  the  church  by  the  minority 
and  any  interference  with  the  occupancy  and  t-njoyment  of 
the  church  by  the  majority.  The  majority  was  entitled  to 
hold  and  use  the  property. 

The  society  in  1827  received  a  conveyance  of  land  in 
trust  for  the  use  of  the  society  and  occupied  the  house  of 
worship  erected  on  such  land.  In  l&ll  certain  members  of 
the  society  were  expelled  by  the  majority.  The  expelled 
members  and  other  persons  organized  a  new  society.  After- 
ward this  new  society  took  possession  of  the  original  house 
of  worship  and  used  it  in  defiance  of  the  majority.  The 
nuijority  party  souglit  an  injunction  restraining  the  mi- 
nority from  attemi)ting  to  use  and  control  the  church,  and 
it  was  held  that  the  expelled  members  had  no  right  to  the 
property.     Shannon  v  Frost,  42  Ky.  253. 

Where  proi)erty  is  held  by  such  voluntaiy  religious  asso- 
ciations or  cor])()rations,  absolutely  and  without  any  limi- 
tation, a  majt)rity  may  dispose  of,  retain,  or  occupy  and 
manage  it  as  they  please,  admitting  the  minority  to  the 
same  benefits  as  themselves.     McBride  v  Porter,  17  la.  204. 

When  two  factions  in  the  same  congregation  disagree  as 
to  which  is  entitled  to  the  control  of  the  church  property, 
and  both  sides  profess  adherence  to  the  same  faith  and  prac- 
tice, the  right  must  depend  ujton  the  will  of  the  majority, 
unless  there  be  shown  some  law,  regulation,  rule,  or  practice 
of  the  church  determining  otherwise.  Nance  v  Bushby.  91 
Tenn.  303. 


I  PROPERTY  533 

Member's  Right,  ^^'lu'^<'  ;i  (oiivcyiuiie  of  a  lot  of  grouinl 
is  made  to  certain  iiMlividiial  iiicmbers  of  a  religious  body, 
who  have  no  coiporate  existence,  in  trust,  to  them  and 
their  successors  in  oitice,  for  church  pur^toses,  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  body  become  bene^ciaries  in  such  property  in  an 
equal  degree,  notwillistanding  some  of  them  may  have  con- 
tributed a  larger  sum  thau  others  toward  the  conmion  enter- 
prise.   Ferraria  v  Vascon cellos,  23  111.  456,  31  111.  1. 

Wheu  mendiersliip  ceases  the  beueficial  interest  in  the 
property  terminates.  It  is  only  as  a  constituent  element  of 
the  aggregated  body  or  church  that  any  persou  could  acquire 
or  hold  as  a  beneficiary  any  interest  in  the  ]>roperty  thus 
dedicated  to  that  chiircii.    Nance  v  Bushby,  !)1  Tenu.  30:5. 

Members  Unlawfully  Expelled,  Eight  to  Be  Heard.  An  ac- 
tion was  brought  to  s(!t  aside  a  deed  of  church  propei-ty 
which,  it  was  alleged,  had  been  unlawfully  obtained  b}'  the 
pastor  and  his  wife  with  intent  to  defraud  the  society, 
convert  the  proj)erty  into  money,  and  jmrchase  other  ])roj)- 
erty  elsewhere;  and  with  the  purpose  of  consummating  this 
object,  the  pastor  had  by  various  means  procured  the  exijul- 
sion  of  certain  members  of  the  society  who  objected  to  his 
operations.  The  court  held  that  the  comjjlainants,  who  had 
been  unlawfully  expelled,  had  a  right  to  be  heard  on  lliis 
question,  and  that  a  lull  inquiry  should  have  been  made 
into  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  attending  the  alleged 
transfer  of  the  ]»roperty.  Hendryx  v  People's  United 
Churcli,  Spokane,    IL'  Wash.  :VMk 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Separation,  Effect  on  Title.  In 
1833  land  was  conveyed  to  certain  persons  as  trustees  for 
the  j)urpose  of  erecting  and  using  a  lioiisc  of  worsliip  accord- 
ing to  the  rules  and  Discipline  of  the  ^lethodist  lOpiscopal 
Church  of  the  United  States.  The  proi)erty  was  to  be  held 
by  the  trustees  and  their  successors,  who  were  to  be  aj)- 
pointed  under  the  laws  of  Alabama.  The  register  in 
chancery  had  power  to  appoint  trustees  to  tdl  vacancies. 
The  I'egister  appointed  trustees,  who  were  held  to  succeed 
to  the  leual  title  veste<l  in  the  oi-iirinal   trustees.     The  fact 


r.:;i        tim:  <'i\  i  l  law  and  'imii;  riii  i;rii 

lliiil  tlic  .McllMxIisI  i;pisc(»|.,il  ("liiircli  (>[  tlic  Ciiitcd  States 
\v;is  (Ii\i<lc<l  ill  ISI  I.  ;iii)l  tli.il  ;i  jciit  of  il  \v;is  erected  into 
a  (leiioiiiiiialioM  known  as  llie  Melluxlist  lOjiiscopal  rimrcli, 
Sonlli.  \\Iiicli  inclnded  i\w,  property  in  (piestion,  did  not 
allec't  tlie  title  of  the  trnstees.  Malone  et  al  Tnistet'H  v  La- 
(Toix,  111  Ala.  (US. 

Minority's  Right,  in  St.  Andrews  Cli.  v  Sclian<;linessy,  fi.'i 
Nelt.  71)1',  it  was  held  tliat  niider  the  Nehi-aska  lUdifjioii.s 
Coi-poi-ation  act  a  minority  of  tlie  inenil)ers  could  not  law- 
fully retain  jjossession  of  the  cori)oration  ]»roperty,  as 
ap;ainst  the  corporation  its<df,  for  the  pui  pose  of  conipellinj^ 
the  coi'poration  to  recoj;iii/e  their  ii<;hts  as  nieinbers. 

Mob,  Destruction  by,  Action  for  Damages.  I*ro[»erty  of  the 
societ}^  consisting  of  buildings  and  personal  estate,  was 
destroyed  by  a  mob  in  May,  1844.  In  an  action  against  the 
county  to  recover  the  value  of  the  i)roperty,  it  was  held  that 
proof  of  the  value  of  each  item  of  property  was  not  neces- 
sary, but  a  general  estimate  might  be  submitted  to  the  jury, 
and  that  the  society  was  entitled  to  recover  the  fair  value  of 
the  property  destroyed.  Brothers  of  the  Order  of  Hermits 
of  St.  Augustine  v  Phihidelphia  County,  4  Clark  (Pa.)  124; 
Brightly  N.  P.  11(>. 

Object  and  Use.  Church  ])roperty  is  for  the  use  of  the 
members  of  the  church,  so  long  as  they  remain  members,  for 
the  worship  of  (lod  according  to  their  articles  of  faith  and 
in  the  manner  provided  by  the  rules  and  instructions  and 
discipline  of  the  association,  and  may  be  so  used  at  any 
proi)er  time  by  any  mend)er.    Pounder  v  Ashe,  44  Nebr.  072. 

Parish,  Massachusetts  Rule.  Under  the  Massachusetts 
parish  system  the  legal  title  of  church  property  was  in  the 
corporation,  consisting  either  of  the  town  as  an  entire 
parish,  or  a  subdivision  of  the  town  as  a  separate  parish, 
and  the  property  was  held  to  a  special  use — that  of  the  suj)- 
port  of  ])ublic  worship.  Attorney-General  v  I'roprietors  of 
Meeting  House  in  Federal  Street,  Boston,  3  Gray  (Mass.) 
1,  87. 

Pastor's  Salary,  Land  May  Be  Sold  to  Pay.     Church  ]»rop- 


PROPEKTV 


060 


erty  may  be  sold  to  pay  the  pastor's  salary.    Lyons  v  I'laut- 
ers'  Loan  and  Savings  Bank,  80  Ga.  485. 

Priest's  Occupancy.  A  jH-iest  was  removed  from  office  by 
his  Ijishop,  by  which  removal  he  was  deprived  of  all  the 
privileges  and  rights  incident  and  pertaining  to  said  posi- 
tion. The  bishop  snbseqnently  served  a  notice  on  the  priest 
to  deliver  np  jiossession  of  the  real  estate  occupied  by  him. 
But  notwithstanding  this  removal  and  notice,  the  priest 
continued  to  occui)y  the  property  ami  refused  to  surrender 
it,  keeping  it  locked,  and  with  threats,  menaces,  and  force 
declined  to  permit  his  successor  to  minister  to  the  con- 
gregation, and  occupy  the  church  property.  It  was  held 
that  the  i)riest\s  occupancy  was  that  of  a  servant  and 
not  that  of  a  tenant;  that  his  occupancy  of  the  proj)erty 
was  simply  an  incident  to  his  relation  to  the  congregation 
as  its  priest  and  his  a])pointnieut  to  the  position  by  the 
bishop.  A  summary  proceeding  to  recover  possession  of  the 
property  was  sustained.  Chatard,  Bisho])  v  O'Donovau,  80 
Ind.  20. 

Pulpit,  Cannot  Be  Seized  on  Execution.  Where  a  meeting- 
house had  been  erected  by  a  corjjoration  formed  for  that 
purpose,  and  the  i)roperty  had  been  conveyed  to  the  parish 
subject  to  the  rights  of  pew-owners,  it  was  held  that  the 
puljtit  could  not  be  seized  on  execution.  Revere  v  Gannett, 
1  JMck.  (Mass.  I   !(;!>. 

Removal  of  Church  Edifice.  Tlic  liou.se  of  worshij)  may  be 
removed  from  one  lot  to  another  or  from  one  village  to 
another  without  an'  aj)plication  to  the  court.  I'ewholders 
have  no  standing  to  object  to  such  removal.  Matter  of  the 
Second  Baptist  Society,  Canaan,  N.  Y.,  20  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y. ) 
324. 

Reversion.  JMoperly  was  conveyed  to  a  church  with  the 
condition  forfeiting  the  estate  to  the  grantor  and  giving 
the  right  of  reentiy  if  the  proj)erty  should  ever  be  used  for 
other  than  church  pnrpo.ses.  The  city  appro[)riated  a  part 
of  the  land  for  a  street.  It  was  held  that  the  church,  and 
not  the  grantor,  was  entitled  to  the  damages  awarded   for 


n.K;        'riii:  cixil  law  and  tiii:  cm  ijcii 

npniiii;^  llic  strci'l.  ( 'iii<-iiiri;i  I  i  \  l':il»l»,  :.".»  Wkly.  I.;i\\  iJiil. 
(Oliif.)    L'SI. 

I'i-(»|»('i-ly  wiis  conveyed  lo  ;i  socicly  of  I'^riciids  loi-  use  "so 
loiiy;  as  it  may  be  needed  for  nieetinu;  iMU'itoses,  llien  said 
in-cinises  lo  tall  Itark  lo  the  oiijiinal  trad."  Tin-  removal 
of  (he  iMiildiiij^s  wliicli  the  society  liad  erected  liirnislied  no 
reason  Tor  a  necessary  inference  tliat  tlie  land  was  no 
longer  ueeded  lor  meeting  pnrposes.  This  did  not  constitute 
a  forleitnre  of  the  title,  and  there  was  no  reversion.  Carter 
V  Branson  et  al,  7!)  hid.  14. 

Reversion  on  Discontinuance  of  Specified  Use.  Land  was 
conveyed  to  a  religions  society  for  a  nominal  consideration, 
with  a  provision  that  the  property  should  be  used  for  churcli 
purposes  ouly,  aud  that  if  it  ceased  to  be  so  used,  the  grantee 
should  i)ay  the  grantor  a  stij»ulated  sum.  It  was  held  that 
if  the  proi)erty  was  not  used  for  cliurch  purposes,  the 
actual  consideration  was  to  be  the  sum  stipulated,  but  there 
was  no  limitation  on  the  continuance  of  the  estate.  Board 
of  Education  Normal  School  District  v  Trustees,  First  Bap- 
tist Church,  Normal,  C3  111.  204. 

l*roperty  was  conveyed  to  trustees  and  their  successors 
''for  the  use  of  the  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  of  the  United  States  of  America  (so  long  as  they 
use  it  for  that  ])urpose,  and  no  longer,  and  then  to  return 
back  to  the  original  owner)  according  to  the  rules  and  Dis- 
cipline of  the  church.  The  equitable  estate  was  in  the  mem- 
bers of  the  church  so  long  as  they  used  the  house  as  a  i>lace 
of  worsliip  in  the  manner  prescribed  and  no  longer.  And 
when  the  specified  use  of  the  property  was  discontinued,  or 
abandoned,  the  title  reverted  to  the  original  owner.  The 
estate  of  the  trustees  terminated  \\hen  the  house  cea§ed  to 
be  used  for  IIh'  jnnpose  intended.  A  mere  temporary  sus- 
])ension  of  services  there,  oi'  a  discontinuance  of  the  use 
without  autlHtrity.  would  not.  ijtso  facto,  determine  the  use. 
The  active  control  of  the  deiical  authorities  of  the  church 
over  j)reachers,  preaching,  and  church  jiroperty.  is  to  take 
from  the  society  at  large,  or  laity,  the  ]M)wer  of  continuing 


PROPERTY  5:37 

ill  tbo  buildiiii;  ;is  a  ])l;i('('  of  worsliij).  atcoidiiij;  to  the  lulcs 
and  discipline  of  this  clmicli,  alter  tlit-  ('cck'siastical  anilmr- 
ity  has  resolved  to  discontinue  the  services  of  its  preadiers 
there.  To  worsliip  as  niend»e!-s  and  under  the  Discijdine, 
they  must  accex)t  the  traveling  i)reacher  sent  to  them  l»y  the 
bishop.  Consequently,  the  trust  ceased  when  the  proi)er 
church  authorities,  acting  nnder  and  according  to  the  rules 
and  Discipline,  totally  abandoned  IIk-  building  as  a  place  of 
worshi])  for  the  members  of  this  chuicli.  Heuder.son  v 
Hunter,  5!)  Pa.  St.  :i:{5. 

Sale.  Under  the  New  York  statute  proceedings  by  a 
majority  of  the  trustees  of  a  religious  cori)oration  for  a 
sale  of  its  jn-operty  are  sufficient  without  a  vote  of  tlie  mem- 
bers of  the  corporate  body.  The  trustees  are  the  agents  of 
the  corporation  for  this  ](urpose.  Property  of  a  religions 
corporation  cannot  be  disposed  of  excejit  by  a  sale  thereof; 
accordingly,  an  agreement  amounting  substantially  to  a 
consolidation  of  two  societies,  in  consideration  of  which 
one  was  to  convey  its  jtrojx'rty  to  the  other  and  a  new  board 
of  trustees  was  to  be  formed,  the  grantee  cori>oration 
to  take  the  name  of  tlie  grantor  corporation,  was  held  not  to 
be  a  sale  within  the  statute.  Consequently,  the  court  had 
no  power  to  make  an  order  authorizing  such  a  transfer  of 
church  projjerty,  and  a  deed  based  on  such  an  older  was 
void.  Madison  Avenue  Baptist  Church  v  Baptist  Church 
in  Oliver  Street,  4G  N.  Y.  lai,  73  N.  Y.  82. 

A  religious  corjioration  has  the  title  to  its  real  ])T'o]HMty, 
ma}'  determine  when  it  should  be  sold,  and  has  the  sole  and 
exclusive  power  to  enter  into  contracts  for  that  i)uri)o.se. 
It  is  not  necessaiy  that  the  consent  of  the  court  should  pre- 
cede the  making  of  the  conti-act,  but  such  a  contract  of  sah' 
cannot  become  etfective  without  a  court  oi-der  wliich  slmulil 
be  obtain«'d  before  a  conveyance  is  made.  ( '(nigicgat  i<tn 
Beth  Klohim  v  Central  Presbyterian  Cliuich.  10  Abb.  Pr. 
N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  484. 

In  Wheaton  v  (iates,  IS  N.  Y.  :)U7},  an  oi-der  of  the  ccuinty 
court   directing  the   tiiistees   to  distribute    the   procee<ls  of 


r);is        'riii;  cisii.  law  am>  'iiii;  ciniicii 

;!  sjilc  (»r  tlir  cliiiicli  propcil y  niiioii;^  llic  |i<'\v-(»\\ii('rs  \v;is  set 
.•isidc.  il  iM'iii^  licid  tli:it  llic  <-(»iirl  liml  ii<»  jiiiisdici  ion  to 
niiikc  snrli  ;iii  ordci*. 

Tlic  jurisdici ion  of  llic  siipifiiir  couit  lo  wullioii/.c  a  siilo 
ol'  (lie  pi'o|»('ily  ol"  ;i  T'cli^^ioiis  corpornt  ion  depends  on  the 
lacts  exist in,u  ;it  the  lime  llie  older  is  made,  and  smli  an 
order  eannol  he  nplield  by  slntwin^-  that  facts  existed  which 
were  in  ih)  way  placed  before  it  or  hroiifjht  to  its  attention 
or  considered  by  it.  ]\Ia<lison  Ave.  Bapt.  Ch.  v  Oliver  St. 
Bapt.  C^li.  7;{  X.  Y.  82.     See  also  40  N.  Y.  131. 

On  an  application  for  the  sale  of  chnrrh  property  it  was 
held  that  a  ]>reliminary  aj^i-eement  with  a  i»rospective  ])nr- 
chaser  need  not  have  been  ma<le,  nor  need  a  new  site  have 
been  definitely  determined.  The  conrt  might  make  a  condi- 
tional order  for  a  sale,  snbject  to  its  ap]>roval.  Pew-owners 
have  no  right  to  object  to  a  sale  of  the  ]troperty,  bnt  vanlt- 
owners  who  had  received  the  title  to  lots  in  fee,  and  had 
erected  vaults  and  monnments  thereon,  were  held  to  have 
an  estate  which  conld  not  be  disturbed  without  their  con- 
sent. Matter  of  Brick  rresbyterian  Church,  3  Edw.  Ch. 
(N.  Y.)  155.  See  also  Brick  I'vesbyterian  Church  v  New 
York,  5  Cow.  (N.  Y. )  5:>S,  sustaining  a  i)y-law  of  the  city 
of  New  York  prohibiting  further  interments  in  the  cemeterj' 
owned  by  this  church. 

Under  the  New  York  religious  corporations  act  of  1813 
the  trustees  have  power  to  remove  the  church  edifice  from 
one  lot  to  another,  or  from  one  village  to  another,  without 
an  order  of  the  court,  but  they  cannot  sell  the  real  estate  of 
the  society  without  such  an  order.  On  an  application  for 
such  an  order  notice  to  the  ])ewholder  is  not  necessary. 
Matter  of  Second  Bai)tist  Society,  Canaan,  N.  Y.,  20  How. 
Pr.  (N.  Y.I  :?24. 

Sale  for  Debts.  Where  money  had  been  loaned  to  the 
trustees  for  the  pur])ose  of  erecting  a  house  of  woi-shi]>.  and 
notes  given  therefor,  it  was  held  that  the  trustees  might, 
under  the  Dis<'i])1ine,  mortgage  tlse  ])roperty  for  a  debt,  and 
on   their  refusal   to   make  such  a  morty-age  the  court  had 


TROPERTY  ry.v.) 

jiowei'  to  Older  a  sale  of  tlie  property  for  tlie  same  i)urpose. 
Bushoiig  V  Taylor,  82  Mo.  GGO. 

Sale  or  Mortgage.  The  vestry  or  trustees  of  a  religious 
corporation  may  aiti)h'  to  the  court  for  an  order  to  sell  or 
mortgage  its  j)roj)ert3-  without  a  vote  of  the  corporators. 
Matter  of  St.  Ann's  Church,  23  How.  l»r.  (X.  Y.)  285,  But 
see  the  New  York  Religious  Corporations  LaAV  Sec.  200, 
which  jtrohihits  the  trustees  without  the  consent  of  a  cor- 
l)orate  meeting,  from  incurring  debts  beyond  what  is  nec- 
essary for  the  care  of  the  property  of  the  cori)oration. 

Sale,  Reinvesting  Proceeds.  Where  a  deed  of  land  to  a  reli- 
gious corj)oration  was  absolute  and  unconditional  in  form 
it  imjiosed  no  trust  on  the  corporation  "beyond  that  gen- 
eral duty  which  the  law  puts  u]ion  a  cori)oration  of  using 
its  projjcrty  for  the  purpose  contemplated  in  its  creation." 
It  was,  accordingly,  held  that  the  corporation  might  sell  the 
l>roperty  on  obtaining  the  required  judicial  consent  and  the 
proceeds  might  be  applied  to  the  i)nrchase  of  other  property. 
Matter  of  First  Presby.  Society.  Bulfalo,  lOG  N.  Y.  251. 

In  this  case  the  question  was  considered  but  not  decided 
whether  the  local  Presbyterian  society  was  bound  to  obtain 
the  consent  of  the  presbytery  before  selling  its  ]>roperty.  It 
a])i)eared  that  the  society  did  a]»ply  to  the  prosbytei-y,  which 
granted  its  consent  on  condition  that  the  majority  of  the 
local  society  should  vote  for  such  sale  at  a  ])ublic  meeting 
and  that  a  majority  did  so  vote.  A  sale  was  authorized  by 
the  court  but  without  <letermining  whether  such  ]»recedent 
permission  of  the  ])resbytery  could  be  recpiired  under  the 
act  of  1875,  chai>.  7J),  and  the  act  of  187(i,  chaj).  110,  which 
provided,  in  substance,  that  clnn-ch  i)ro])erty  should  be  held 
according  to  the  rules  and  usages  of  llie  denomination  to 
which  the  local  society  belonged. 

Land  was  conveyed  to  trustees  and  their  successors  for- 
ever for  the  use  of  the  Methodist  lOjdscopal  Church  in  the 
United  States,  and  the  trustees  were  re(piired  forever  to 
permit  ministers  and  ])reachers  belonging  to  said  church  and 
duly  authorized,  to  j»reach  in   the  house  oi'  worsliip,  to  Im" 


r.lO  TIM':  CIN'IL   LAW  ANh  Till:  (III   K'CII 

creeled  on  siieli  l;iiul.  It  \\;is  held  lli;il  llie  court  li;id  power 
tft  direct  :i  sale  <»r  tlu;  pi'opeity  I'l'ce  fi-oni  the  Ini.st,  pr<jcee(ls 
to  I)c  invested  in  other  ])ropei'ly  to  be  used  for  the  same  i)ur- 
|K)se  by  the  local  society.  Be  Sellers  Cliaj)el  Metli.  Church, 
i:;!>  I'm.  St.  (;i. 

Sale,  When  Court  Order  Not  Necessary.  The  ti-nstees  had 
power  to  jmrchase  a  new  site,  and  i-eniove  the  church  edifice 
from  the  old  site  to  the  new  w  ithout  an  order  of  the  court. 
Matter  of  Second  Baptist  Society,  Canaan,  N.  Y.,  20  IIow. 
Pr.  (N.  Y.)  324. 

Where  a  church  edifice  had  been  sevei-ed  from  its  founda- 
tions and  placed  on  rollers  j>r<'i)aratory  to  its  removal  from 
the  lot  it  was  held  to  be  personal  estate,  and  might  be  sold 
by  the  trustees  without  an  order  of  the  court.  Beach  v 
Allen,  7  Hun.  (X.  Y.)  441. 

The  provision  in  the  New  York  Religious  Corporations 
Law  prohibiting  a  sale  of  church  property  without  leave  of 
the  court  applies  only  to  domestic  religious  corporations, 
and  has  no  application  to  the  property  of  a  foreign  cor- 
poration.   Muck  V  Hitchcock,  212  N.  Y.  283. 

Secession,  Effect  on  Title.  The  title  to  the  church  property 
of  a  congregation  that  is  divided  is  in  that  part  of  the  con- 
gregation that  is  in  harnjony  with  its  own  laws,  usages,  and 
customs  as  accepted  by  the  bod^'  before  the  division  took 
place,  and  who  adhere  to  the  regular  organization.  It  does 
not  matter  that  a  majority  of  any  given  congregation  or 
Annual  Conference  is  with  those  who  dissent.  The  power  of 
the  majority,  as  well  as  that  of  the  minority,  is  bound  by 
the  Disci])line,  and  so  are  all  the  tribunals  of  the  churcli 
from  the  lowest  to  the  highest.  Krecker  v  Shirey,  IGo  Pa. 
534. 

An  organized  church  cannot  be  divested  of  its  property 
by  even  a  majority  of  its  members  who  enter  into  a  new 
organization,  although  they  adopt  the  same  name,  provided 
the  other  organization  still  exists;  and  when  seceders  from 
an  organized  church  entei"  into  such  new  organization  they 
forfeit  all  claim  to  anv  interest  in  the  former  church  and 


PROrERTY  541 

lose  all  identity  with  it.  Venable  v  Coffinan,  2  W.  Va. 
310. 

A  church  oi-gauization,  possessing  and  holding  property 
as  a  church,  cannot  be  divested  of  their  property  by  a  part, 
even  a  majority,  of  its  members  reorgaiuzing  themselves 
into  another  organization,  even  by  the  same  name,  pro- 
vided the  old  organization  still  exists  as  an  organization. 
By  the  reorganization  the  jiersons  constituting  it  in  effect, 
by  such  revolutionary  movement  and  se(;ession,  exclude 
themselves  from  the  church  organization  and  forfeit  all 
claim  to  any  interest  in  the  i)roperty  lield  ])y  the  cliurch  or 
identity  with  it.    Harj>er  v  Straws,  14  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  48. 

Sewing  Circle,  Funds.  A  sewing  circle  was  organized  for 
1lie  pui-pose  of  raising  funds  to  refurnish  the  clmrch  edifice. 
Some  of  the  persons  composing  the  society  were  and  others 
were  not  members  of  the  church.  The  sewing  circle  had  a 
treasurer  to  whom  was  paid  money  derived  from  various 
sources,  including  contributions,  entertainments,  exhibi- 
tions, etc.  It  was  held  that  the  money  thus  raised  "became 
the  property'  of  the  church  or  religious  society,  and  that  this 
corporation  could  maintain  an  action  against  the  treasurer 
of  the  sewing  circle  to  recover  the  funds.  First  l?;iptist 
('hurcli  in  Fnndcliiidale  v  Pryor,  2:»  Ilun.  (  X.  Y. )  271. 

Special  Trust,  Effect.  Land  was  conveyed  to  ccrlniii  i»cr- 
sons  as  trustees  of  the  local  society  for  the  support,  encour- 
agement, and  j)referment  of  religion  and  in  trust  "for  the 
religious  society  denominated  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  of  the  town  of  Seneca,"  and  anothei-  piece  was  con- 
veyed to  the  society'  for  a  parsonage.  II  was  held  that  the 
trustees  of  the  society  took  the  i)roperty  for  the  use  of  siuh 
society,  according  to  the  law  and  j)rinciples  which  governed 
the  organization  of  such  cori)orations.  They  could  not  take 
it  nor  hold  it  in  any  ()ther  character,  or  upon  :iny  other 
trust.  The  property  thus  conveyed  belongs  to  llie  corjioni- 
tion  which  was  comjtosed  of  all  the  mendx'is  of  the  society 
entitled  to  vote  in  the  election  of  trnstees,  ;ind  a  majority 
of  whom  thus  conliols  I  lie  ]>roperty  of  the  corporation,  and. 


nil'        tin:  cinil  law  and  tiii;  <iii  i:(II 

;is  ;i  iM'ccssjiry  (•<»iis<'(|iiciic(',  (Iccidcs  llic  (•(■clcsiiist  ical  irl.i- 
tioiis  :iim1  coimccl  ions  of  llic  socictv  ;iii(l  tin*  cliiiriKlcc  oT 
IIh*  i-('liji;i<)us  views,  opinions,  iind  doctrines  incnicwfcd  Irom 
its  pulpit.  The  dccfl  did  not  (!<•(  hire  the  ecclesiaKt it;il  con- 
iiection  of  the  society  ;it  tlie  time  of  its  date,  or  uj)on  its 
face  seek  professedly  to  jn'ijietuate  its  connection  with  any 
ecclesiastical  judicatory.  The  ;iction  of  the  society  and  its 
minister  in  obtaining-  conn<Mtion  witli  lh«-  Kocliester  City 
Presbytery  of  tlie  Ohl  Scliool  I'resbyterian  Chui-ch  in  the 
United  States,  and  thus,  in  elfect,  severing  its  relations  witli 
the  United  Presbyterian  (Mnirch,  was  not  any  abuse  of  tiu; 
trust,  nor  did  it  involve  any  special  departure  in  things 
fundamental  in  respect  to  the  spiritual  concerns  and  wor- 
shij>  or  doctrines  of  the  church.  Burrel  v  Associate  Ke- 
fornied  Cliurch,  Seneca,  44  Barl».  (X.  Y.)  282. 

Sunday  School  Building.  A  fnnd  paid  to  the  treasurer  of  a 
religious  society  for  the  i>uri»ose  of  aiding  in  the  erection 
of  a  building  for  the  use  of  the  Sunday  school  was  deemed 
the  property  of  the  church,  and  the  society  in  its  corporate 
capacity  was  held  entitled  to  recover  the  fund  from  the 
treasurer  after  the  expiration  of  his  term  of  office.  Rector, 
Church  of  the  Redeemer  v  Crawford,  43  N.  Y.  476. 

Suspending  Power  of  Alienation.  Tlie  case  considers  the 
validity  of  a  gift  of  a  fund  to  a  religious  corporation  to  be 
kept  intact  forever,  the  income  of  which  was  to  be  paid 
to  another  religious  corporation  for  ten  years.  It  was  hebl 
that  the  transaction  did  not  amount  to  an  unlawful  suspen- 
sion of  the  power  of  alienation  of  personal  proi)erty.  The 
title  to  the  fund  passed  to  the  donee  which  was  the  ultimate 
beneticiai-y.  Tabernacle  Bapt.  Church  v  Fifth  Ave.  Baptist 
Church,  32  Misc.  (N.  Y'.)  446. 

Surplus  on  Sale.  Wliere  property  is  conveyed  to  a  par- 
ticular church  as  such,  and  it  be  sold  for  its  debts,  the  sur- 
plus is  held  by  the  trustees  as  the  original  was  held,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  church,  and  not  subject  to  any  conditions  not 
attached  to  the  first.  Harper  v  Straws,  14  B.  :Mon.  (Ky.  i 
48. 


PROPERTY  543 

Taxation.  Property  of  the  church  was  held  under  a  lease 
for  ninety-nine  years  and  renewable  forever.  This  was  held 
to  be  of  such  a  permanent  character  as  to  entitle  the  prop- 
erty to  exemption  from  taxation.  Church  of  the  E])iphaiiy 
V  Raine,  10  Oliio  Dec.  449. 

A  lease  for  1)1)9  years  for  a  gross  sum  is,  for  all  pracTical 
l)ui'poses,  a  conveyance  in  fee  simple.  Such  a  lease  given 
for  ])i()us  uses  ujider  llie  statute  of  1702  (Conn,  i  under 
which  statute  the  huul  was  exem])t  from  taxation,  was 
a  frjuid  on  the  statute,  and  wouhl  in  most  cases  be  in  fi-aud 
of  the  donor.  The  act  of  18.59  subjecting  to  taxation  cer- 
tain proj)erty  liehl  for  rcdigious  ])urp(>ses  was  retrospective 
and  was  not  unconstitutional.  Brainard  v  Colchester,  '^i 
Conn.  407. 

Title,  How  Held.  A  liouse  of  worsliij)  erected  on  land 
owned  by  a  c()ri)oratiou  is  owned  by  the  corporation  and  not 
by  the  members  of  it,  and  the  corporation,  in  this  instance 
the  j>arisli,  liad  couti-ol  of  the  house  and  the  right  to  deter- 
mine its  general  use,  including  the  employment  and  settle- 
ment of  the  pastor.  First  Baptist  Society,  Leeds  v  Grant, 
59  Me.  21.5. 

Title,  When  Not  Affected  by  Exclusion  of  Society,  in  1889 
St.  John's  Church,  of  Islip,  was  read  out  of  the  diocese  of 
Long  Isbmd  l)v  tlie  diocesan  convention,  but  it  was  held 
that  tlie  church,  being  an  incorporated  society  under  tlie 
statute,  was  not  divested  of  the  title  to  property  which  it 
was  authorized  to  take.  Ludlow  v  Rector,  etc.,  of  St.  Joiiirs 
Ch.,  (;s  Misc.  (N.  v.)  400. 

Trust,  Limitation  by  Testator.  Testator  devised  real  estate 
to  an  ecclesiastical  sociciv,  with  a  ))rovisi()u  that  such  j»rop- 
erty  should  not  be  sold  (»r  disposed  of,  with  nunicioiis  de- 
tails regulating  the  conduct  <tf  the  trustees  aj»p<>iiiicd  lo 
administer  the  ti-ust.  All  the  provisions  were  held  to  con 
situte  a  limitation  of  the  trust  and  not  a  common  law  condi 
tion.    Stanley  v  Colt,  5  Wall.  (U.  S. )  119. 

Trustees,  General  Rights.  The  trustees  of  an  incorporated 
religious  society   are  entitled    lo   the  possession  of  all   the 


nil        'riii:  cixii.  law  and  'riii:  cmijcir 

l('iii|Mir.ili  I  ics,  ;iii(l  me  (((iisifjcicd  ;is  hiwiiilly  scizcfl  of  the 
<i;r(iiiii(l  :iii<l  lmil(linj<;  hcloii^inj^  lo  Hk;  clinrcli;  ami  if  the 
Inislccs  close  I  he  (loor  of  the  cliuicli  against  tlje  minister 
and  congiejijaf ion,  arul  lliey  bi'eak  and  enter  the  clnirch  by 
force,  an  indidnicnl,  a  I  I  he  instance  of  the  trustees,  will  lie 
afjainst  (hem,  lor  such  foi-cible  entry.  The  Peo])1e  v  Runkle, 
!)  .lohns.  fX.  Y. )   1  IT. 

Unconditional  Gift.  A  person  who  gives  property  to  a 
local  religions  society  witliont  attaching  any  conditions  to 
the  gift  must  be  jiresnnuMl  to  have  mad(?  it  in  contempla- 
tion of  the  law  of  the  church  by  which,  u])on  abandonment 
or  dissolution  of  the  local  society,  its  property  would  [»ass 
to  the  governing  body  of  the  denomination.  Heisler  v  ^leth- 
odist  Protestant  Church  of  Mapleton,  147  N.  W.  (Iowa) 
750. 

Unincorporated  Society.  Where  property  is  conveyed  to 
an  unincorporated  religious  society  and  the  society  after- 
ward becomes  incorjjorated,  the  corporation  becomes  the 
owner  of  the  projterty  so  conveyed.  Baptist  Church,  Hart- 
ford V  Witherell,  3  Paige  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  29G. 

Where  a  grant  is  made  to  individuals  for  the  use  of  a 
church  which  at  the  tiuie  of  the  grant  is  not  incorporated 
as  such  the  persons  to  whom  the  grant  is  made  stand  seized 
to  the  use;  and  when  the  church  afterward  acquired  a  legal 
capacity  to  take  and  hold  real  estate  the  statute  executes 
the  possession  to  the  use,  and  the  estate  vests.  Reformed 
Protestmit  Dutch  Ch.  v  Veeder,  4  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  497. 

Vestry  Room.  The  aj)])ropriation  of  a  part  of  the  conse- 
crated ground  of  a  church  was  authorized  for  a  vestry  room 
in  (\\mi)bell  v  Paddington,  24  Eng.  Law  &  Eq.  Pep.  597. 


PROTESTANT 

Augsburg  Confession,  545. 
Congregation,  546. 
Fink's  Asylum,  546. 
Heidelberg  Catechism,  546. 
Vital  principle,  547. 

Augsburg  Confession.  In  consequence  of  the  i>rotest 
iij^aiust  the  decree  of  the  Diet  of  Spires  (or  Spii'e,  or  Spei- 
ers)  holden  within  and  for  the  empire  of  Germany  niidci- 
tlie  emperor  Cluirles  V,  in  the  year  1520,  the  foHowers  (»! 
Luther  were  denominated  J*rotestants,  a  general  term  m  liicli 
was  applied  alike  to  all  who  adopted  the  principles  ol  I  lie 
Keformation  in  opposition  to  tlie  Catholic  Clinrch,  and 
which  has  continued  to  the  present  time.  Now,  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Keformation  tlius  adopted  by  Luther  of  Sax- 
ony and  his  fellow  laborers — and  among'  whom  were  Znin- 
glius  in  Switzerland,  Melanchthon  in  Germany,  Calvin  in 
France,  Cranmer  in  England,  and  Knox  in  Scotland — pre- 
ceded tirst  by  the  Waldenses  among  tlie  Alps  and  later  by 
Wickliffe  in  England,  and  after  him  by  llns  and  .Jerome  of 
Bohemia,  were  founded  ui)on  the  Bible  alone  leceived  as 
the  revelation  of  God's  will,  and  held  to  be  the  supreme  and 
only  rule  of  faith  and  i)ra(li<e.  In  this  llicy  all  agree<l, 
though  they  ditlered  widely  in  many  of  their  views  of  doc- 
trine and  of  church  ]>olity. 

These  views  and  j)rin(i|»les  were  incor|)orat(Ml  into  a  gen- 
eral confession  by  the  I  Met  held  at  Augsbui-g  in  T.avaria  in 
the  year  ir>.'*0,  whicli  lias  since  been  known  as  tlie  Augsburg 
Confession.  This  (.'v<'nt  niaiked  tlie  ciilniiiialion  of  the  (3er- 
nian  Reformatir)n  ;  and  tliis  cuiilt'ssidii  w.is  Tor  a  time  tlie 
established  IM'otestant  cre«'d.  'I^his  conl'ession  consisted  of 
two  parts:  first,  the  positive  and  allirmntive  part,  consisting 

515 


r,i(;        Tin:  cinil  law  am>  'iiii:  ciii  k<ii 

(»r  twciity-oiK^  articles,  which  cinhraccd  (iicir  views  of  (Miris- 
liai)  doctrines  jih  taught  in  tho  Bible;  while  the  Hecond  part 
consiste<l  of  seven  articles,  consisting  of  points  of  ditfer- 
ence  between  themselves  and  tiie  Honian  Catholics.  A  man 
cannot  be  a  Protestant  without  lirKt  being  a  ChrlHtian.  Hale 
V  Everett,  r,:>,  N.  H.  1. 

Congregation.  The  term  ''Protestant  congregation"  means 
those  who  attend  a  miiiistiy  ]>rofessing  that  doctrine.  At- 
torney-Oeneral  v  Di-nmmond.    :>  Dm.  &  War.  (Eng.)  102. 

Fink's  Asylum.  Testator  bequeathed  a  fund  for  the  pur- 
pose of  establishing  in  New  Orleans  an  asylum  I'm  Protes- 
tant widows  and  or])hans,  to  be  known  as  Eink's  Asylum. 
The  court  held  that  the  bequest  was  sufliciently  definite,  the 
objects  being  the  widows  of  a  prescribed  class,  living  in 
New  Orleans.  These  were  ca])able  of  identification.  The 
will  did  not  create  a  perpetuity,  except  to  the  ordinary  ex- 
tent applicable  to  bequests  of  this  character.  A  corpora- 
tion was  formed  known  as  the  Fink's  Asylum,  and  this  cor- 
poration intervened  in  the  suit,  claiming  the  legacy.  The 
court  held  that  the  trust  was  to  be  administered  by  the  citj- 
of  New  Orleans.    Fink  v  Fink  Executors,  12  La.  Ann.  .301. 

Heidelberg  Catechism.  It  is  jwrt  of  the  general  history  of 
the  world  that  after  the  Protestant  Reformation  had  been 
set  on  foot  by  Luther  the  first  authoritative  declaration  of 
the  principles  of  the  gi-eat  reformer  was  presented  to  Charles 
V,  June  25,  1530,  at  the  city  of  Augsburg,  in  certain  articles 
of  faith  CMubodied  in  what  is  known  as  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession; and  this  confession,  revised  by  Melanchthon,  under 
the  supervision  of  Luther,  has  ever  since,  it  is  believed,  con- 
stituted the  accei»ted  creed  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  Soon 
afterward  ardent  reformers  censured  the  retention  by  the 
Lutherans  of  the  practice  of  auricular  confession,  and  their 
supposed  doctrine  as  to  the  I'resence  in  the  sacrament  under 
the  name  of  'Honsubstantiation.''  These  reformers  of  the 
Reformation,  under  the  lead  of  Calvin,  formulated  their 
amended  creed  in  what  is  known  as  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chism, which  disputed  the  doctrine  of  consubstantiation,  in- 


I'ROTKSTAXT  547 

sisted  that  the  sacramcMit  in  both  kiuds  should  hv  given  to 
the  laity,  discarded  the  use  of  the  Hostie,  or  cousecrated 
wafer,  aud  denounced  in  all  its  forms  the  ju-actice  of  auri- 
cular confession  to  priests.  Ebbinghaus  v  Killian,  1  Mackey 
(Dis.  of  Col.)  247. 

Vital  Principle.    Kcligious  toleratiou  is  the  vital  principle 
of  Protestantism.     Anderson  v  Erock,  3  Me.  243. 


PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 

Baltimore  church  homo  and  infirmiuy,  549. 
Bishop,  549. 

Centriil  Now  York  Diocese,  549. 
Curate,  550. 
Describ(Kl,  550. 

Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary  Society,  550. 
Elections,  rector's  power,  551. 
English  origin,  551. 
Glebe  land,  sale,  551. 
Governing  body,  551. 
Government  ownership  disapproved,  552. 
Griswold  College,  552. 
Guild,  553. 
Iowa  Diocese,  553. 
Long  Island  Diocese,  553. 
Missions,  553. 

North  Carolina,  legacy  apportionment,  554. 
Old  Ladies'  Home,  trust  for  sustained,  555. 
Pennsylvania  Convention,  555. 
Philadelphia  Episcopal  Academy,  555. 
Philadelphia  Orphan  Asyliun,  556. 
Property,  title  of  general  denomination,  556. 
Reader,  status,  556. 
Rector,  call,  dissolving  relation,  556. 
Rector,  cannot  be  excluded  from  property,  557. 
Rector,  title  of  local  society,  557. 
Rector,  casting  vote,  558. 
Rector,  charges  against,  558. 
Rector,  changing  diocese,  effect,  559. 
Rector,  defined,  559. 
Rector,  dissolving  relation,  560. 
Rector,  election,  sufficiency,  561. 
Rector,  exclusion  from  clim-ch,  562. 
Rector,  exclusion,  when  unlawful,  562. 
Rector,  how  called,  563. 
Rector,  legacy  for  support  sustained,  563. 
Rector,  right  to  occupy  property,  563. 

548 


PKOTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CUUKCU  ol!) 

Rector,  tenure  of  office,  564. 

Sale,  legislative  power,  564. 

Sale  of  church  property,  565. 

Trinity  Chui-ch,  charter,  565. 

Trinity  Church,  charter  superior,  565. 

Trinity  Church,  8t.  John's  Chapel,  566. 

Trust,  conveyance  to  bishop,  566. 

Trustees,  cannot  act  for  two  societies,  566. 

Unincorporated  Society,  cannot  take  title  to  land,  567. 

Vestry,  cannot  act  without  meeting,  567. 

Vestry,  casting  vote,  567. 

Vestry,  acting  without  formal  resolution,  568. 

Vestry,  increasing,  568. 

Vestry  meetings,  568. 

Vestry,  powers,  569. 

Vestry,  promissory  notes,  570. 

Vu-ginia,  early  chiuch,  570. 

Virginia,  education  society,  571. 

Wardens  and  vestry,  status,  572. 

Warfield  CoUege,  572. 

^^'esteru  New  York  Diocese,  572. 

Widows  and  orphans'  fund,  572. 

Worship,  rector's  authority,  573. 

Baltimore  Church  Home  and  Infirmary.  The  Chnvch  Home 
aiMl  Iiifii-niiiry,  JJnlliniorc.  iiicoi-porated  iiiidei'  llie  Maryland 
act  of  IS.")!*,  vh-Ai).  2:;i,  to  be  under  the  nianagenient  and 
control  of  tlie  Piolcslant  I'^piscopal  Church,  was  not  a  reli- 
gions corporation  under  tlie  statute  of  that  State.  Balt/.ell 
V  Church  Home  and  Infirmary,  Baltimore,  110  Md.  244. 

Bishop.  There  was  no  Protestant  T^piscopal  hisliop  in 
America  until  after  tlie  Pevolution;  Bislioji  Sealuuy,  <»f 
Connecticut,  consecrated  in  ITSt,  being  the  tirst  Ani(Mi<an 
bislioj)  of  tills  (h'noiiiiiiatioii.     Bartlett  v  Hijikins,  7(»  Mtl.  ">. 

Central  New  York  Diocese.  There  never  was  any  coi-iKti-a- 
tion  known  or  designated  as  "The  Diocese  of  Central  New 
York."  Law  1841,  cliaj).  1:14,  created  a  corjtoration  known 
as  the  "Trustees  for  the  Management  and  Care  of  the  Fmid 
for  the  Sui)i)ort  of  Ilie  llinscopate  of  the  Diocese  of  ^^'esterIl 
New  York."  Law  isti;5,  cliaj).  r»!»,  created  a  ((Mitoration 
known  as  "Trustees  of  the  Parochial  Fund  of  (lie  Protestant 


.-);")(»  Till':  ('l\ll.   I-AW   AND  'I'lli:  (IUKCII 

I'l»is(<»]»;il  Clniicli  in  llic  DioccHC  of  WcKtern  New  ^'oi-U." 
By  Liiw,  iSdS,  <li;i|(.  Jlil),  ])i-(>visi(ni  was  iiiadp,  in  view  of  tin; 
division  of  (lie  Diocese  of  Western  New  York,  for  the  crea- 
tion of  a  new  cor])oi'at ion  in  tlie  new  diocese  snbHeqnently 
called  the  Diocese  of  Cential  New  York,  tlie  powers  and 
object  of  sudi  new  corj)oi'ation  to  be  substantially  tin;  same 
as  those  specified  in  the  act  of  1841,  and  also  for  the  crea- 
tion of  a  new  cor]»oration  in  the  new  diocese,  the  ])Owers  and 
object  to  be  the  same  as  those  specitied  in  the  act  of  l.S<)o. 
The  ]K)wers  of  the  corporation  created  under  this  statute 
were  extended  in  18S7  and  a<j;ain  in  1S88.  These  statutes 
resulted  in  the  creation  of  a  corporation  known  as  "The 
Trustees  for  the  Management  and  Care  of  the  Fund  for  the 
sup])ort  of  the  Bisho])  under  the  Directions  of  the  Conven- 
tion of  the  Church  of  the  Diocese."  The  testatrix,  by  a  will 
made  in  1895,  devised  a  stone  house  owned  and  occupied  l)y 
her  in  New  Hartford  to  the  "Corj)oration  of  the  Diocese  of 
Central  New  York,"  to  be  used  as  the  bishop's  residenc<*  of 
said  diocese.  In  Kingsbury  v  Brandegee.  113  Api».  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  ()0(J,  the  devise  was  sustained  on  the  ground  that  the 
testatrix  intended  to  give  the  property  to  the  trustees  of 
the  Diocese  of  Central  New  l^ork,  the  later  corporation  as 
above  indicated. 

Curate.  Tlie  curate  is  ex  officio  a  member  of  the  board  of 
wardens,  having  one  vote  lilce  any  other  member.  Wardens 
of  the  Church  of  St.  Louis  v  Blanc,  8  Rob.  (La.)  52. 

Described.  The  I'rotestaut  Episco})al  Church  in  United 
States  is  an  organized  body  of  Christian  people,  and  in  its 
ecclesiastical  organization  it  has  a  constitution,  canons, 
rules,  and  regulations  for  its  government.  It  is  divide<l 
into  dioceses,  each  designated  by  an  api)ropriate  name,  and 
having  greater  or  less  territorial  extent.  East  Carolina 
Diocese  v  Trustees  North  Carolina  Diocese,  102  N.  Car.  442. 

Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary  Society.  Testatrix,  a  resi- 
dent of  Maryland,  made  a  gift  to  this  society,  with  a  request 
that  the  fund  be  used  for  domestic  missions.  The  mission- 
ary society  was  incorporated  in  New  York  for  the  purpose 


PROTESTANT   i:i'IS('(  )1'AL  ('11IK<1I  "A 

of  couducliiij;  general  iiiissioiiary  opt'ialioiis  in  all  lauds, 
and  had  power  to  take  gifts  aud  bequests  lor  liu'  ohji'cts 
above  stated.  Its  work  was  divi<lo(l  into  two  classes — 
domestic  and  foreign  missions.  Bequests  for  domestic  mis- 
sions are  used  for  that  purpose  only  ;  bequests  without  speri- 
tication  are  divided  e(iually  between  the  two,  d(»iii(*siic  and 
foreign.  The  bequest  was  Iield  valid.  Domestic  and  l\>rciun 
iVrissionary  Society,  I'rotestant  Episcojjal  Church  v  (laillicr. 
(iL*  Fed.  liep.  422. 

Elections,  Rector's  Power.  Under  (lie  New  York  stainte 
regulating  elections  in  a  Proleslanl  ICpiscojial  clinich  tlic 
rector  is  both  the  ])resi<ling  and  returning  ollicer,  and  his 
certificate  of  election  is  j)resumi)tive  evidence  that  the  ])er- 
sons  named  therein  were  duly  elected;  and  if  the  certificate 
is  attacked,  it  must  be  shown  that  the  certificate  was  erro- 
neous and  that  persons  other  than  those  mentioned  in  llu- 
certificate  were  elected.    People  v  La  Coste,  37  N.  Y.  1!>2. 

English  Origin.  The  English  ecclesiastical  law  forms  the 
basis  of  the  law  regulating  the  affairs  of  the  Ei)iscopal 
Church  in  this  country,  and  is  in  force  except  so  far  as  it 
has  been  modified  and  changed  by  statute,  ami  by  the  usages 
and  canons  of  the  church.  Livingston  v  Trinity  (Church, 
Trenton,  45  N.  J.  Law,  2:^0. 

Glebe  Land,  Sale.  In  Claughton  v  Macnaughton,  2  Muni". 
(Va.j  5K],  it  was  held  that  under  the  \'irginia  act  of  1S02 
glebe  land  could  not  be  declared  vacant  and  sold  if  liiere 
was  a  minister  who  had  been  i)ut  into  ])ossession  oT  ilie 
proi»erty,  and  this  jiossession  did  not  depen<l  oti  (he  re.i;u- 
larity  of  the  election  of  the  vestry.  The  (u-dei-  ot  the  vestry 
that  the  minister  be  inducted  into  (he  ]>arisli  was  snilicieiil 
to  i>revent  a  sale  <»r  the  land  as  vacant. 

Governing  Body.  The  clnirch  is  a  regularly  oigani/.ed  reli- 
gious establishnu'nt,  and  is  entirely  inde])endent  of  all  State 
or  federal  governmental  control.  The  nuMnbersliip  is 
purely  voluntary  and  is  compose<l  of  the  clergy  and  the 
laity.  The  snj)reme  govei'uing  body  is  (lie  (Jeneial  <'on- 
ven(ion,    comjiosed    of   represen(a(ives    of   both    <  lei-^y    Mn<l 


:>r,'2        'nii;  cin  1 1.  law  am»  'riii:  (in  k<  ii 

l.iilv,  .111(1  wliitli  li.is  ;;<'ii('r;il  jmisdi)  I  ion  <»v<t  lln-  ;illiiii-s  of 
tlic  cliniili  ;iinl  i(s  iiiciiibers,  as  jirescrilMMl  in  tlic  (•<(iistitu- 
li<Mi  (licicor;  I  lie  Icgislalivo  will  of  tlic  convJMilioii  is  cx- 
])i-('sse(l  ill  the  form  of  canons  of  tlic  clinrc-li,  clian^jt^'able 
fi-om  time  to  time,  as  the  General  ('oiiNcniion  may  dcter- 
mine.  The  clnirch  is  divided  into  dioceses,  tlie  <i;ovenrni<; 
body  of  eacli  of  wliicli  is  a  diocesan  convenlion,  presidcil  over 
by  a  ))islio]»  of  the  diocese,  who  is,  besides  being  jiresidciit  of 
the  convention,  clothed  witli  certain  other  ])Owers  as  the 
head  of  the  diocese.    Satterlee  v  U.  S.,  IM)  Apj).  1).  (\  :\U:',. 

Government  Ownership  Disapproved.  The  cliuich  Ix'tian 
|»roceedin<»s  for  the  sale  of  a  large  tract  of  land  owned  by  it. 
Snch  sale  was  resisted  by  the  overseers  of  tlie  ])Oor,  who 
claimed  the  right  to  the  property  under  an  early  Virginia 
statute.  The  court  ordered  a  sale  of  the  itropei-ty,  holding, 
among  other  things,  that  the  corporation  had  the  title,  and 
the  land  was  not  subject  to  anj^  claim  by  the  overseers  of  the 
jx.or.    Terrctt  v  Taylor,  0  Cranch  (U.  S.)  43. 

Griswold  College.  About  ISOi;  the  bishop  of  tlie  Iowa 
Diocese  formed  a  ]dan  of  erecting,  on  land  belonging  to 
Griswold  College  ])ro])erty,  a  church  edifue  to  be  called  the 
"■Bishoi)'s  Church."  The  college  ant hoii ties  transfi'i-red  the 
title  to  land  for  the  ])urpose  of  the  new  church,  on  condition 
that  the  i)roperty  should  be  held  by  the  bisho]i  and  his  suc- 
cessors in  trust  for  the  j)urpose  aforesaid.  The  erection  of 
the  church  edifice  was  begun  by  the  bishop,  and  was  carried 
forward  as  rapidly  as  funds  would  permit.  The  bishojt  had 
charge  of  the  enterprise,  and  collected  nearly,  if  not  all,  the 
funds.  Subscriptions  being  inadequate,  the  bishop  bor- 
rowed money  on  his  individual  credit  for  the  juirpose  of 
carrying  on  the  enterprise.  The  total  expenditure  was 
about  170.000,  and  the  amount  received  by  the  bishop  was 
$00,000.    He  advanced,  or  used  -<^10,000  from  his  own  funds. 

About  the  time  the  church  edifice  was  completed  and  con- 
secrated the  bishop  died.  His  administrator  brought  an 
action  to  recover  the  >?1 0,000  advanced  by  him,  or  for  a 
judgment  declaring  a  lien  on  the  j)roi)erty  for  the  amount 


PKOTESTA^sT  El'lSCOPAL  CHl'KCil  553 

advanced.  It  was  held  that  the  advances  by  {he  liisho]*  weie 
voluntary,  and  wdthout  any  obligation  on  his  part.  This 
was  a  charitable  or  religious  trust,  with  no  beneticiary 
known  to  the  law,  it  appearing  that  to  allow  a  recovery 
would  be  to  put  an  end  to  tlie  trust  estate  and  to  tlic  tiust 
itself,  and  defeat  tlie  whole  object  thereof,  as  conlenijilaled 
b}'  the  bishop  liiniself  and  by  those  who  contributed  their 
funds  for  the  erection  of  the  church.  French,  Adui'r.  v 
Trustees,  Griswold  College,  (10  la.  482. 

Guild.  The  vestry  authorized  a  guild  to  erect  a  building 
on  a  part  of  the  society's  laud,  which  building  was  occupied 
and  used  by  the  guild  for  vaiious  church  jturposes.  Later 
the  guild  sought  to  use  the  building  for  its  own  benetit  by 
renting  it  to  outside  parties.  The  vestry  prohibited  such 
use,  and  this  control  of  the  jn-operty  by  the  vestry  was  sus- 
tained, it  being  held,  among  other  things,  that  the  guihl 
could  not  recover  damages  against  the  vestry  for  its  refusal 
to  permit  tlie  guild  building  to  be  used  for  outside  purposes. 
Eead  v  St.  And)rose  Ch.  G  l»a.  Co.  Ct.  70. 

Iowa  Diocese.  This  diocese  comprises  the  entire  State  of 
Iowa,  and  was,  on  joint  vote  of  the  two  hou.ses  of  (leneral 
Convention,  admitted  into  union  with  the  Church  of  the 
United  States.  By  the  constitution  of  the  diocese  it  is  a 
part  of  the  Protestant  Ej>iscopal  Church  i!i  the  United 
States  and  acknowledges  the  authority  of  thai  church.  Rii-«I 
v  St.  Mark's  Church,  Waterloo,  02  la.  5fi7. 

Long  Island  Diocese.  The  act  ( L.  1S71.  Ch.  750)  incoi-por- 
ating  the  trustees  of  the  estate  belonging  to  the  diocese  of 
Long  Island  exempted  its  property  from  taxation.  Real 
j)i'oj)ei-ty  donated  to  the  ti-ustees  and  not  occupied  for  i-eli- 
gious  })urposes  was  held  exempt  from  taxation.  People  v 
Dohling,  0  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  SO. 

Missions.  The  Domestic  and  I'\)reign  ^Tissionaiy  Society 
held  entitled  to  receive  and  administer  a  legacy  lHv  a  nds- 
sion  to  be  established  at  I'orl  ('resson  on  tli"  wc'^l  coast  of 
Africa.  Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary  Society's  .\p|ie.il. 
30  Pa.  St.  425. 


r>:y\  TIIIO  CINIL   LAW  AM)  'I'lli:  (III   KCII 

'rt'slal  rix  IxmiuciI  lied  to  tliis  socicly  ;i  I'nini  l(»  lie  us(*<l  f(ir 
llic  |iiii|)(»s('  <»!'  (Mcrtiii^  :iii  ll|HS(()|>;i  I  cluijx'l,  ;iih1  siisl;iiiiiii<; 
:i  mission  upon  (Ik*  lioiiicstcjid  ol'  llic  testatrix.  \'ai"i<»ns 
jtracticai  olijcclioiis  were  made  to  tlic  l)('(|U(*st.  iiicludiiif^  llie 
statement  that  the  mission  could  not  Itc  maintained  at  tlie 
jdace  indicate<l,  and  would  receive  no  patron  a  jj;('.  Testatrix 
had  Ji  right  to  <levote  her  |)r(»perty  to  this  ]>urj»ose,  and  The 
court  could  not  overiule  her  intention  by  assuming  in  ad- 
vance that  the  location  would  jirove  to  be  inconvenient.  The 
trust  Avas  lor  an  object  plainly  charitable.  This  bequest  was 
sustained,    Eliot's  Appeal,  74  Conn.  586. 

Testatrix,  a  resident  of  Maryland,  made  a  bequest  ''to  be 
paid  lor  the  special  benetit  of  the  foreign  missions  associated 
with  the  Episcopal  Church."  The  corporation  known  as 
the  Domestic  and  Foreign  ^Missionary  Society  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  claimed  the 
bequest,  this  being  the  only  general  missionary  society  in 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  The  bequest  was  held  1o 
be  indefinite,  and  not  subject  to  explanation  by  extrinsic  evi- 
dence. The  above-named  missionary  society  was  not  entitled 
to  the  becpiest.  Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary  Society 
I'rotestant  Episcopal  Church  v  Keynolds,  \)  Md.  3-11. 

A  bequest  to  the  Diocesan  Missionary  Societies  of  Mary- 
land and  Virginia,  was  held  void  as  to  Maryland,  for  the 
reason  that  there  was,  at  the  time,  no  incorporated  mission- 
ary society  capable  of  taking  the  bequest,  but  it  was  held 
valid  as  to  Virginia,  there  being  in  that  State  an  incori)or- 
ated  missionary  society.    Brown  v  Tli(»mpkins,  J:!>  Md.  4'2'-i. 

North  Carolina,  Legacy  Apportionment.  Until  1883  the 
rrotestant  10]uscoi)al  Church  in  the  State  of  North  Car(»1ina 
constituted  the  diocese  of  North  Carolina.  In  that  year, 
in  accordance  with  the  constitution  and  canons  of  the 
church,  a  diocese  known  as  East  Carolina  was  constituted 
out  of  part  of  the  territory  of  tJie  Diocese  of  North  Caro- 
lina, and  the  church  in  the  residue  of  the  territory  retained 
the  name  of  the  Diocese  of  North  Carolina.  Testatrix,  by  a 
will  made  in  1881,  devised  certain  of  her  property  "to  the 


PROTESTANT   lOlMSCOI'AL  OHrRCH  nf);-) 

board  of  trustees  lor  llie  rroteslaiit  IO]tisr()ji;il  (Miurcli  in  tlie 
Diocese  of  North  Carolina."  Testatrix  died  in  lSSr>.  It  was 
held  that  the  object  of  the  testatrix'  bounty  was  the  10]»is- 
copal  Church  iu  the  State  of  North  Carolina,  and  the  Dio- 
cese of  East  Carolina  is  entitled  to  share  with  the  present 
Diocese  of  Norlli  Carolina  in  the  property.  iOast  Carolina 
Diocese  v  Trustees  North  Carolina  Diocese,  102  N.  Car.  44L*. 

Old  Ladies'  Home,  Trust  for  Sustained.  The  will  contained 
a  bequest  to  ])rovide  "a  home  for  ladies  of  advanced  ai^c  or 
infirm,  who  are  or  may  hereafter  become  connected  with  the 
St.  Paul's  Church  society,  or  with  the  mission  or  the  chui(  h 
that  is  to  be  established  ujjou  my  homestead."  It  was  held 
that  the  terms  of  the  bequest  were  entitled  to  a  liberal  con- 
struction. The  bequest  applied  to  persons  who  hail  no 
home  or  no  comfortable  one.  The  society  was  at  liberty  lo 
provide  a  home  for  eacli  jXM-son.  individually,  or  in  private 
families,  or  to  gather  them  in  one  general  residence.  Tlie 
beipiest  was  sustained.     lOliot's  A]»|)eal,  74  Conn.  oSfi. 

Pennsylvania  Convention.  By  tlie  constitution  of  the 
chuT'ch  the  Convention  of  the  I'rotestant  Ej)isco]»al  (lunch 
of  Pennsylvania  is  composed  of  the  clergA'  and  of  lay  de|>u- 
ties.  They  deliberate  in  one  body,  but,  when  five  mend)ers 
require  it,  they  vote  as  two  distinct  orders,  and  the  concur- 
rence of  each  order  is  necessary  to  give  validity  to  any  mea- 
sure. The  j)roj)osed  charter  of  a  local  society  was  rejecte<l 
because  it  contained  a  provision  prohibiting  the  disi)osition 
of  its  j)roperty  without  the  consent  of  the  Convention.  The 
clerical  members  of  the  Convention  could  jjrevent  the  alien- 
ation of  pro])erty,  and  the  charier  was,  therefore,  held  re- 
j)ugnant  to  the  provisions  of  Ihe  Pennsylvania  act  of  April 
20,  1855,  which  veste<l  the  control  of  projierty  in  the  lay 
members  of  the  local  society.  Ke  St.  Paul's  Church.  Chest 
nut  Hill,  :U)  Pa.  St.  152. 

Philadelphia  Episcopal  Academy.  This  inslitnti(Mi,  incoi- 
porated  by  a  sj>ecial  a<-t  in  1TS7,  was  under  the  jurisdictioii 
of  the  Protestant  I'^]>iscopal  Chui'ch,  and  was  maintained  as 
an  acadeni}^  for  the  instruction  of  students  i»riniai'ily  of  that 


nnc        I'lii':  <i\il  law  and  'iiii;  <n(  i:(  ii 

r.iilli.  Tilt-  iiisl  il  III  ion  \\:is  lirld  In  Itc  :i  |)iilili(-  (-li:irity,  :iim] 
I IkmcIoic  cxciiiiil  hoiii  l;i\;ilioii.  Ilpiscopiil  A<"i<l('niy  v 
I'liil;i(lcl|ilii;i,    ir.O   l';i.  ,",(;:». 

Philadelphia  Orphan  Asylum.  'rrsl;il  rix  pidN  idrd  lur-  tlie 
csliildisliiiit'iil  (»r  iiii  ;is_\liiiii  lor  llic  iii;i  iiitciiaiicc  iiiid  cdii- 
calioii  ol'  white  rciniilc  oi|»h;iiis  hctwetMi  tiic  ;i<:;<'s  of  four  and 
eight  years,  who  should  cither  liave  been  I>aj»tized  in  the 
rrotestaiit  lOpisiopjil  Church  in  Philadelphia  or  elsewhere 
in  Pennsylvania,  and  also  other  female  white  children  of 
the  same  aj;es  without  any  other  description,  exce])t  that 
orphan  children  of  Protestant  10])iscopal  ministers  should 
be  preferred,  that  the  form  of  worship  and  instruction 
should  he  that  taught  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
This  was  held  to  create  a  jjublic  charitable  institution,  which 
was  exempt  from  taxation.  TJurd  Orj)han  Asylum  v  School 
District  of  U]>per  Daiby,  !)()  Pa.  St.  21. 

Property,  Title  of  General  Denomination.  The  trustees  of 
the  Protestant  Episco])al  Church  elected  and  chosen  by  the 
diocese  of  Chicago  are  authorized  to  accept  and  make  con- 
veyances for  the  uses  and  purposes  mentioned  in  the  ])rivate 
acts  of  18-11)  and  ISGl,  and  the  bishop  of  the  diocese  of  Chi- 
cago, as  the  successor  of  the  bishop  of  the  diocese  of  Illinois, 
may  take,  hold,  or  convey  property  for  the  uses  and  purposes 
exi)ressed  in  the  i>rivate  act  of  ISrj^.  Kennedy  v  LeMoyue, 
188  111.  IT)."). 

Reader,  Status.  In  Sanger  v  Inhabitants  in  Roxbury,  8 
Mass.  2t)r),  it  was  held  that  a  reader  is  a  ])ublic  teacher  of 
piety,  religion,  and  morality,  within  the  meaning  and  intent 
of  the  third  article  of  the  Massachusetts  bill  of  rights. 

Rector,  Call,  Dissolving  Relation.  The  rector  was  called  by 
the  church wai-dens  and  a  majority  of  the  vestry.  He  ac- 
cepted the  call  in  writing  and  entered  upon  the  duties  of  his 
office.  His  election  was  afterward  certified  to  the  conven- 
tion of  the  diocese  of  New  York,  and  he  took  his  seat  in  the 
convention  by  virtue  of  that  certificate.  The  call  was  not 
for  a  specified  time.  It  was  held  that  after  the  defendant 
had  been  called  and  settled,  without  any  expressed  limita- 


PROTESTANT  KriSCOI'AL  CHURCH  TkjT 

tioii  of  time,  lio  ((Uild  iiol,  accoidiiii;  to  the  luk's  of  lliis 
cluu'cli,  be  <lisinisse<l  oi-  removed  without  his  owu  consent, 
except  by  the  bishop  of  the  diocese.  The  rector  did  not  re- 
sign. He  was  hold  to  have  been  regularly  employed,  and 
the  preliminary  injunction  restraining  him  from  further 
performance  of  the  duties  of  rector  was  held  to  have  been 
improperly  granted.    Youngs  v  Ransom,  IM  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  40. 

Rector,  Cannot  Be  Excluded  from  Property.  The  rector  is  a 
member  of  the  vestry  and  by  the  law  of  the  State,  as  well  as 
tlie  law  of  the  clinrch,  is  entitled  to  the  possession  and  con- 
trol of  the  church  ])roperty  according  to  the  rules  of  the 
church  for  the  purposes  prescril)ed  by  the  law  of  the  church 
and  to  be  used  according  to  its  rules  and  discipline.  The 
vestry  cannot  remove  him  from  office.  Ackley  v  Irwin,  71 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  2.']9. 

Rector,  Title  of  Local  Society.  The  parish,  or  congregation 
was  incorporated  in  1S55,  under  the  laws  of  Illinois,  and  tlie 
trustees  were  aj)pointe(l.  A  contract  had  already  been  made 
for  the  j)nrchase  of  a  lot  on  which  to  erect  a  house  of  wor- 
ship and  parsonage.  This  jiroperty  was  conveyed  to  the 
trustees  of  Christ  Church  in  1S()2.  The  deed  contained  no 
declaration  of  trust.  The  majority  of  the  congregation  NNcre 
classed  as  Low  Church,  and  the  bishop  of  tlie  diocese  be- 
longed to  the  school  known  as  High  Church.  In  view  of 
these  dilferences,  the  local  society  desire<l  to  hold  the  projt- 
erty  strictly  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  parish  or  con- 
gregation, free  from  the  interference  and  control  of  the 
bishop,  and  the  incorporation  of  the  parish  or  congregation 
and  the  ai^pointment  of  trustees,  and  the  conveyance  to  tlicm 
so  far  as  any  ])articular  ])urpose  or  object  was  shown  to 
have  been  thereby  intended,  were  to  attain  tliis  end.  An 
injunction  was  sought  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the 
rector  from  occupying  the  i)arsonage,  from  using  the  house 
of  worship,  and  fi'om  paying  liim  for  services  as  rector  from 
the  funds  of  the  church. 

It  was  held  that  if  ]>ersons  chose  to  give  liim  money  he 
had  a  right  to  receive  it,  whether  or  not  he  luul  any  right 


ri-ys        Tin;  <"i\iL  LAW  AM>  Till';  <iiii;("ii 

to  (illiciulc  :is  rcclui-.  It  \\;is  jillcjicfl  tlinl  tlic  rcciov  liiid 
l)(»(*ii  (1(»|k)S(m1  from  (he  iiiinishv  of  llic  Prolcslaiit  Ej)lHc<jpal 
(^liurch  by  the  i»rofK'r  clmicli  jn<li<;iloi-v.  hccnnse  of  iion- 
I'onfonnlly  with  eert;iiii  of  its  Iciu'ts.  XolwillistJUMliiij^ 
tills  alleged  deposition,  the  rector  was  coiitiimed  by  the 
oflicers  of  the  society,  who  were  sustained  by  nearly  all  of 
the  congi'egation.  It  was  held  that  in  the  absence  of  any 
trust  in  the  conveyance  of  ]»roj)e!ty  to  the  society,  the  trus- 
tees did  not  hold  it  for  any  church  in  general,  nor  for  the 
benefit  of  any  j)eculiar  doctrines  or  tenets  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice in  religious  matters,  but  solely  for  the  society  or  con- 
gregation whose  officers  they  were,  and  they  were  not,  in  the 
discharge  of  their  duties,  subject  to  the  control  of  any  eccle- 
siastical judicatory.  "Christ  Church  was  organized  as  a 
parish  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  it  is  liable 
to  the  Discipline  of  that  church.  But  that  does  not  affect 
property'  rights  acquired  and  held  for  the  use  of  the  parish 
or  congregation  as  a  cori)orate  body,  as  distinct  from  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  general.  This  property 
and  its  use  belong  to  the  i)arish  or  congregation,  and  there  is 
no  sufficient  reason  for  taking  it  from  them  and  giving  it  to 
the  church  at  large  for  the  benefit  of  others."  The  injunc- 
tion was  denied.    Calkins  v  Cheney,  02  111.  4^Ct'A. 

Rector,  Casting  Vote.  By  the  charter  of  this  society 
(Church  of  the  lOvangelist)  the  vestry  was  composed  of  the 
rector  and  twelve  vestrymen.  A  vacancy  having  occurred,  a 
meeting  was  held,  attended  by  the  rector  and  eleven  vestry- 
men. Six  of  the  vestrymen  voted  for  one  candidate,  and  the 
other  five,  with  the  rector,  voted  for  another  candidate.  The 
rector  then  voted  to  dissolve  the  tie,  thus  voting  twice.  It 
was  held  that  he  had  a  riglit  to  vote  once,  but  could  not 
again  vote  to  dissolve  a  tie,  and  therefore  that  the  vestry- 
man claiming  to  have  been  elected  by  the  rector's  two  votes 
was  not  legally  chosen.  Neilson's  Ajjpeal.  105  Pa.  180;  see 
as  to  New  York  rule,  subtitle  below.  Vestry,  casting  vote. 

Rector,  Charges  Against.  A  rector  was  charged  with  nou- 
confoniiitv  to  the  doctrines  of  the  church,  intentional  omis- 


I'KOTKSTANT  KI'lSiMH'AL  CHURC^H  559 

sious  ill  tlie  iiiiiii.slralioii  ol'  its  ordinances,  and  an  allcmpt 
was  made  to  organize  a  conrt,  composed  of  his  brother 
clerjiymen,  for  liis  trial.  Jle  ai»j)eali'd  lo  the  civil  court, 
and  alleged,  as  the  chief  reason  for  interposition,  the  want 
of  authority  in  the  spiritual  court  to  try  him,  and  the  mis- 
construction of  the  canons.  The  ecclesiastical  conrt  deter- 
mined that  it  had  jurisdiction.  The  civil  court  declined  to 
restrain  the  ecclesiastical  court  from  continuing  the  trial  of 
the  rector.    Chase  v  dieiiey,  5S  111.  50!). 

Kector,  Changing  Diocese,  Effect.  The  society  made  a  con- 
tract with  Mr.  Brock  way  b}'  which  he  was  to  become  the 
rector  of  the  church  at  a  stijnilated  salary.  This  church 
was  in  the  Central  ]S'ew  York  Diocese,  and  Mr.  Brockway 
was  a  minister  in  the  Western  New  York  Diocese.  By  the 
law  of  the  denomination  a  minister  moving  from  one  dio- 
cese to  another  could  not  gain  a  canonical  residence  in  the 
latter  diocese  except  by  the  approval  of  the  bishop  of  that 
diocese.  In  this  case  the  bishop  of  Central  New  York  re- 
fused to  api^rove  Mr.  Brockway's  transfer,  and  after  he  had 
officiated  several  months  as  rector  the  bishop  served  on  him 
an  order  of  inhibition  jirohibiting  him  from  further  service 
in  the  Central  New  York  Diocese.  The  local  society  and 
Mr.  Brockway  joined  in  an  action  against  the  bi.shop  of 
Central  New  Y^ork  to  comi)el  him  to  give  a  certificate  of 
transfer,  and  for  a  judgment  declaring  the  onler  of  inhibi- 
tion null  and  void,  and  restraining  the  bishop  from  inter- 
fering with  the  carrying  out  of  the  contract  between  the 
church  and  Mr.  Brockway.  It  was  held  that  the  bishop  had 
jurisdiction  to  make  the  order,  and  lliat  the  court  had  no 
right  to  consider  the  merits  and  determine  whether  there 
was  just  cause  for  the  order.  Kector  Saint  James  Church 
V  Huntington,  82  Ilun.  (N.  Y.)  125. 

Rector,  Defined.  A  rector,  as  the  word  is  understood  by 
the  canons  of  the  I'rotestant  Episco|>al  Church,  is  a  duly 
ordained  clergyman  of  the  church  in  piiest's  orders,  who 
has  been  elected  to  the  rectorshij*  by  the  vestry  of  the 
parish,  agreeable  to  the  canons  of  the  church,  and  in  whose 


n(i(>        Tin;  ri\iL  law  a.\i>  'iiii;  (  mi  kch 

(-;ili  or  iii\  il:il ion  or  not i ti<-;il ion  of  <-lc(-l ion  there  is  no  limi- 
tation of  lime  specified  when  the  enj^ajjemeMt  or  conlrael 
(for  such  flu;  ('n<japement  between  the  elerjiyman  aiul  the 
vestry  as  two  j»i'in(i|»als,  is  considered  i  is  to  eeas(?.  Jjird 
V  St.  Mai-k's  Chnrcli  of  Wjiterloo,  (iL*  la.  .")(;". 

Rector,  Dissolving-  Relation.  Jiy  a  canon  of  tiie  I'rotestant 
I'4»iscoi»al  Chuich  a  reclor  canonically  (dected  !ind  in  charj^e, 
cannot  resign  Iiis  parish  wilhoul  the  ((nisent  of  the  jiarish 
or  its  vestry,  nor  can  snch  i-ector  he  lemovetl  tiier(drom  by 
the  parish  or  vestry,  against  liis  will,  exce])t  npoii  the  dis- 
solution of  his  i)astoral  connection  in  the  manner  and  by  the 
authority  designated  by  otlier  canons. 

In  ]8!)0  the  rector  was  chosen  by  the  local  society  and 
entered  on  tlie  dnti<'s  of  his  office.  In  ISJJ:',  in  consequence 
of  dissensions  in  the  society,  the  bislioj*  ina<le  an  order  ter- 
minating the  pastoral  rcdation  of  the  rector,  and  directing 
the  local  society  to  |)ay  him  the  amount  of  his  salary  then 
uni)aid.  The  pastoral  ndation  was  dissolved  n])on  the  peti- 
tion of  the  officers  of  the  society.  The  court  held  that  the 
order  of  the  bishop  was  not  sufficient  under  the  law  of  the 
church  to  dissolve  the  i>astoral  relation  without  further  pro- 
ceedings.    Jennings  v  Scarborough,  5(5  N.  J.  haw,  -1^01. 

In  1798  a  general  church  canon  provided  that  *'in  case  of 
any  dissolution  of  his  pastoral  relations  either  party  may 
give  notice  of  such  disagreement  to  the  bishoj),  and  the  deci- 
sion of  the  bishop  in  the  premises  shall  be  final  and  binding 
upon  tlie  ))arties."  Hut  this  canon  was  not  to  be  in  force  in 
any  diocese  which  has  ma<le,  or  shall  hereafter  make,  pro- 
vision by  canon  upon  the  subject,  or  in  any  diocese  with 
whose  laws  or  charters  it  may  intei-fere.  No  canon  on  this 
subject  had  been  adopted  in  Maryland,  but  the  statute  of 
1798,  continuing  in  substance  the  act  of  177!).  chap.  9,  rela- 
tive to  the  Protestant  Episco]ial  Church,  provided  that  the 
vestr}'  of  the  local  church  should  have  the  power  to  call 
a  rector  and  make  contracts  in  relation  thereto,  including 
the  term  of  service  an<l  the  severance  of  the  i)astoral  rela- 
tions.   The  general  church  canon  on  this  subject  was,  there- 


PROTESTANT   EPISCOPAL  OHrR(^H  5<;i 

lore,  held  iiol  apjilicMlde  in  iIjc  .Mainland  diorcse.  iJurtleU 
V  Hipkins,  76  Md.  5. 

By  its  admission  into  the  diocese  of  Iowa  the  parish  of 
St.  Mark's  became  a  part  of  the  church  in  the  United  States 
aud  amenable  to  its  caucus.  One  of  the  canons  is  that  the 
rector  cannot  be  removed  by  the  vestry  a<!,ainst  his  will. 
These  canons  were  declared  to  be  a  part  of  the  contract  of 
employment.  The  vestry  could  not,  by  reduciug  the  rector's 
salary  without  his  consent,  coinj)el  liim  to  accept  a  dissolu- 
tion of  the  pastoral  relation.  In  this  case  the  rector  was 
held  entitled  to  recover  the  full  amount  of  the  stipulated 
salary  less  the  amount  received  during  the  current  year. 
The  contract  could  not  be  modified  by  the  church  without 
the  rector's  consent.  Bird  v  St.  Mark's  Church,  Waterloo, 
62  la.  567.  In  this  case  it  was  also  held  that  by  the  canons 
of  the  church  a  rector  canonically  elected  aud  in  charge, 
or  an  instituted  minister,  may  not  resign  his  parish  without 
the  consent  of  said  jtarish  or  its  vestry,  if  the  vestry  be 
authorized  to  act  in  the  premises,  nor  may  such  rector  or 
minister  be  removed  therefrom  by  said  parish  or  vestiy 
against  his  will  excex)t  that  the  pastoral  relation  nuiy  be 
dissolved  when  the  parties  cannot  agree  resj)e(ting  the 
separation,  by  the  bishop  acting  with  the  advice  and  con- 
sent of  the  standing  committee  of  the  diocese  or  missionary 
jurisdiction. 

Rector,  Election,  Sufficiency.  This  cluucli  was  subject  to 
the  canons  and  laws  of  Ihe  Protestant  I'jinscojial  Church 
of  the  United  States  and  Diocese  of  California.  The  society 
was  not  incorjjoraled,  hut  had  been  a  mission  under  the 
direct  supervision  of  the  bishojt,  with  a  minister  in  charge. 
On  the  2!)th  of  May,  1SS2,  the  nnssion  was  organized  as  a 
parish.  Vestrymen  were  elected  and  assunuMl  the  duties  of 
their  otlice.  They  elected  a  rector,  but  did  not  give  the  bishop 
any  notice  of  su<]i  an  election,  and  no  appointment  was  nuule 
by  him.  Afterward,  at  the  meeting  of  the  vestry,  the  rector- 
shij)  was  declared  vacant,  and  notice  thereof  was  given  to 
the  rector  ]»reviously  elected,  and  to  the  l)ish(»]i.    The  hisliop 


r)(;2        'I'm;  cixil  law  and  'I'iii:  rmiicii 

;i|t|t(»iiil('(|  jiiiotlicr  rrclor  l<»  sii|i|»ly  the  |»l;i(('  until  :i  ro-tor 
\v;is  circled. 

On  llic  l*!Mli  of  .Inly,  ISS:;.  the  im'wIv  ii|»|)«)iMtc(|  rector  was 
exjiectcd  to  lake  cliarj^e  of  the  service  at  llu;  rej^nlar  hour, 
I  1  (('clock  A.  M.  Ahont  U  o'clock  a.  m.  of  the  same  day  the 
former  rector,  so  chosen  l»y  the  vcsti-y,  entei-ed  the  <-hnrch 
and  commenced  to  hold  service,  and  <-ontinned  such  sei'vice 
nnlil  after  the  honi'  of  eleven  o'clock,  and  after  the  arrival 
of  the  newly  appointed  rector.  The  rector  so  in  charjie  of 
the  irre«;ular  service  gave  notice  that  on  the  next  day,  -Inly 
;U),  an  election  would  be  held  for  the  j»ni]tose  <»f  ch(»(»sin*;  five 
vestrymen.  At  the  hour  ajtpointed  for  the  nieetinj;  on  the 
evening  of  July  .'JO,  the  church  was  locked,  and  thereupon 
several  persons  met  at  the  house  of  one  of  the  ])arishioners, 
ami  held  an  election,  choosing  five  vestrymen,  as  recjuiretl  l»y 
the  notice.  The  notice  of  election,  the  meeting  on  the  ;50ih, 
and  the  election  of  vestrymen  were  held  to  be  irregular  and 
invalid.    Dahl  v  I'alache,  CS  Tal.  248. 

Rector,  Exclusion  from  Church.  The  vestry  assumed  au- 
thority to  exclude  the  rector  from  office  and  prevent  him 
from  occupying  the  church  edifice  and  parish  building. 
Such  exclusion  was  wrongful,  and  the  rector  was  held  en- 
titled to  the  use  and  control  of  the  property  according  to 
the  canons  of  the  church.  In  this  right  he  was  sustained 
not  only  by  the  civil  court  but  also  by  the  judgment  of  a 
properly  constituted  ecclesiastical  tribunal.  Ackley  v  Ir- 
win, 71  Misc.  (N.  Y.  I  2:?9. 

Rector,  Exclusion,  When  Unlawful.  In  18G1  the  plaintilf 
was  called  to  be  rector  of  this  society,  and  continued  in 
that  office  until  18(17,  when  on  the  next  Sunday  after  Kaster 
the  church  was  closed  against  him,  and  he  was  also  excluded 
from  the  parochial  schoolhouse.  This  expulsion  was  by  the 
wardens  and  vestrymen.  The  rector  brought  an  action 
against  them  for  damages,  and  recovered  judgment.  It  was 
held  that  the  plaintiff,  by  his  official  connection  with  the 
society,  acquired  all  the  customary  powers  and  ])rivileges 
pertaining  to  the  rectorshij),  inclu<ling  the  right  to  occupy 


I'KOTKSTANT  E1'1SC01»AL  CHUKCll  :,(};] 

the  house  of  wdisIu]*  and  the  parochial  sclioolhou.se  lor  the 
jjiirpose  ol"  i)ei-t()i-iuiiig  the  I'uiictions  rehitive  to  his  ultice, 
and  his  exclusion  therefrom  was  unhiwful.  JiVnd  v  Menzies, 
3o  N.  J.  Law,  loL'. 

Rector,  How  Called.  The  churchwardens  and  vestrymen 
have  the  exclusive  power  of  calling  and  inducting  a  minister. 
The  persons  qualilied  to  vote  for  the  churchwardens  and 
vestrymen  have  no  such  right.  Humbert  v  St.  Stejdien's 
Church,  N.  Y.  1  Edw.  Ch.  (N.  Y.j  308. 

The  vestry  has  the  power  to  appoint  and  remove  Ihc 
rector;  the  congregation  has  no  power  of  renutval.  Stuhlts 
V  Vestry  of  St.  John's  Ch.  OG  Md.  2G7. 

The  provision  of  the  New  York  religious  societies  act  of 
1813,  section  8,  which  provides  for  fixing  the  salary  of  a 
minister  by  a  vote  of  the  congregation,  does  not  apply  to 
Protestant  Episcojjal  churches.  A  call  to  a  parish  and  its 
acceptance  and  consequent  entry  upon  the  duties  of  the 
office  of  its  minister,  are  all  whicli  we  have  in  this  country 
resend)ling  the  ])resentafion.  admission,  and  induciion  of 
the  English  Church,  and  neitlier  these  terms  nor  the  cere- 
monies indicated  are  known  to  our  law  as  a])i)licable  to  any 
of  our  churches.  The  congregation,  in  tlie  manner  indicated 
by  the  law  of  the  land,  and  in  case  of  Episcopal  churches  by 
their  vestry,  call  a  clergyman  to  exercise  his  functions  in 
tlieir  parish  and  fix  his  compensation.  TI\e  term  "institu- 
tion" in  English  ecclesiastical  law  is  applied  to  the  investi- 
ture of  tlie  s|tiiitual  as  induction  is  to  that  of  the  temporal 
j)art  of  the  henelice.  There  is  no  such  tiling  known  to  our 
law  as  institution  oi-  induction,  and  ilie  ecclesiastical  law 
of  the  mother  country  is  no  part  ol'  ilic  law  under  which  we 
live.     Youngs  v  Kansom,  31   liarli.    i  N.  V.  i   4!l. 

Rector,  Legacy  for  Support  Sustained.  A  devise  to  the  so- 
ciety for  the  j>urpose  of  j>roviding  a  fund  for  the  su]>j)ort  of 
the  rector  was  sustained  in  Tucker  v  St.  (,Menienl*s  Chiirch, 
New  York,  3  Sandf.  Sup.  Ct.  (N.  Y. )  242,  all'd  8  N.  Y.  5r)8u. 

Rector,  Right  to  Occupy  Property.  One  of  the  rights  of  the 
rector  under  a  call  from  a  pailicular  cofigregaticm  is  thai 


nc.l  TIM':  (*I\IL   LAW   AM)   Till:  <  "I  I  IK*   1 1 

of  |»i(';i(liiii;^'  oil  Sundays  in  the  cliiiicli  ]»i'(tvi<l(M|  hy  tlu;  con- 
;,M'('jfali()n.  "IMiis  docs  not  involve;  any  (|n('s1ifni  of  title  to 
tlic  projicrly,  Itnl  the  rector  ninst  of  necessity  liave  tiie  right 
to  partake  in  such  nse  of  the  property  as  the  confjrej^ation 
has.  AA'hatever  jdace  tlie  congregation  provi(h*  for  the  ptir- 
j)Ose  of  public  worshi])  in  the  jtarish,  into  such  place  tlie 
rector,  by  virtue  of  his  office,  has  tlie  ri*!;ht  to  enter  in  order 
to  conduct  such  worship.  Lynd  v  ^lenzies,  3.1  N.  J.  Law. 
1()2. 

Rector,  Tenure  of  Office.  The  vestry  adopted  a  resolution 
that  the  rector  be  elected  ]»ernianently  to  the  rectorsliijt  of 
the  church.  It  was  held  that  tlie  word  ^'permanently"  meant 
for  an  indefinite  period,  and  that  it  was  intended  that  the 
rector  should  hold  the  oflice  until  one  or  the  other  of  the  con- 
tracting parties  should  desire  to  terminate  the  connection. 
I'erry  v  Wheeler,  75  Ky.  541. 

The  rule  or  regimen  of  the  Ei)isco]>al  Church  as  to  the 
tenure  of  its  parish  ministers  is  that  when  they  have  once 
been  placed  in  charge  of  congregations  they  can  neither 
leave,  nor  be  dismissed,  excejit  by  mutual  consent,  without 
the  intervention  of  the  bishop.  When  a  minister  is  called  or 
settled  in  an  Episcopal  parish  without  any  limitation  of 
time  he  can  only  be  dismissed  or  sever  the  connection  by 
mutual  consent  or  by  superior  ecclesiastical  authority  on 
the  application  of  one  of  the  parties.  Youngs  v  Ransom,  31 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  49. 

The  vestry  on  the  2'2d  day  of  May,  11)01*,  adopted  a  resolu- 
tion terminating  the  relation  of  the  rector  to  the  society  to 
take  effect  on  the  31  st  of  July  following.  The  rector  had  no 
notice  of  this  intended  action  by  the  vesti'y  except  by  the 
resolution,  which  was  immediately  served  on  him.  It  was 
held  that  the  rector  had  no  vested  right  in  the  office  and  was 
not  entitled  to  notice  of  the  intended  action  by  the  vestiy. 
The  rector  applied  for  an  injunction  restraining  the  vestry 
in  rcuioving  him  from  office.  The  injunction  was  denied. 
Stubbs  V  Vestry  of  St.  John's  Ch.  96  Md.  2(h. 

Sale,  Legislative  Power.    An  act  was  passed  in  1871  author- 


PROTESTA.NT   I^PISCOPAL  CHURCH  565 

izing  the  society  to  sell  its  real  jiroiterty  and  iisi'  ilie  avails, 
first  for  the  paymenl  of  the  society's  debts,  and  lor  the 
eompensatiou  of  pew-owners,  and  rights  in  tondjs  sitnated 
upon  the  land.  The  balance  was  to  be  applied  in  the  pnr- 
chase  of  another  lot  an<l  llie  erection  of  a  clnnc  li  tliert'on. 
The  act  was  a])plied  for  by  a  majority  of  the  society,  and 
accepted  by  it.  In  an  action  to  restrain  the  saU?  it  was  held 
that  the  Ix^gislature  had  power  to  i)ass  the  act,  notwith- 
standing the  fact  that  the  conveyance  of  the  land  provided 
for  a  perpetual  use  thereof,  and  the  church  to  be  erected 
thereon,  for  religious  pur})Oses.  Xor  was  the  title  of  the 
society  alTected  by  the  jjrovision  in  the  canons  of  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church  that  the  consent  of  the  bishop  and 
the  standing  committee  should  be  obtained  for  removing, 
taking  down,  or  otherwise  disj)osing  of  a  church.  Titles  to 
projjerty  must  be  determined  by  the  laws  of  the  common- 
wealth. The  canons  are  nmtters  of  discipline  and  cannot  be 
enforced  by  legal  i)rocess.  Sohier  v  Trinity  Church,  10!) 
Mass.  1. 

Sale  of  Church  Property.  Sale  of  church  site,  consent  of 
bishop  and  standing  committee  must  be  shown.  Lane  v  Cal- 
vary Church  of  Summit,  N.  J.,  51)  N.  .1.  Eq.  401). 

Trinity  Church,  Charter.  This  society  was  incorpoialed 
while  New  York  was  a  jjrovince  of  Gi-eat  Britain  and  the 
charter  incorporated  "all  persons  inhabiting  or  to  inhabit 
the  city  of  New  York,  and  in  communion  with  the  I'rotes- 
tant  Church  of  lOngland."  "The  Protestant  Episcojial  Church 
was  the  established  church  of  the  mother  country;  an«l  the 
crown,  in  its  generosity  to  the  Episcopalians  in  the  city  of 
New  York,  naturally  sought  to  i»hice  Trinity  (Munch  on  a 
footing  as  similar  to  that  of  the  Church  of  lOnjiland  as  b)cal 
circumstances  would  permit."  Groesbeeck  v  Dunsrondt,  41 
How.  I'r.  (X.  Y.I  :!()2. 

Trinity  Church,  Charter  Superior.  In  Burke  v  Kector,  etc., 
of  Trinity  Church,  (13  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  43  aflirmed  i;;l'  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  1):;0,  it  was  held  that  Trinity  Clinrch,  having 
been  chartered  by  the  I']nglish  crown  in   HiliT,  was  not  sub- 


:)<;<;        'riii;  cixil  law  and  tiii:  ciukc  ii 

jt'cl  lo  the  piovisicdis  of  the  rclij^idus  coiiioia  I  i<»iis  hiw  oT 
.New  ^'(t^U  so  far  ;is  such  |»i'(»\isi<)iis  ;irc  iiicoiisislciit  with 
(tr  in  (l('r(»;^;il  ion  of  llic  (h.ii'tcr  rij^lils  and  privilc^ics  of  that 
corpoi-at  ion. 

Trinity  Church,  St.  John's  Chapel.  Trinity  Church  was 
incorj)oratt'(l  by  Ihe  British  crown  in  KJOT.  The  jiai-ish  of 
Trinity  Church  cinhraccs  the  entire  borough  of  Manhattan, 
an<l  includes  Trinity  Church  and  nine  chapels,  witii  one 
rector,  and  several  vicars,  curates,  and  assistants.  The 
vestry  is  tlie  governing  body  of  tliis  church,  and  necessarily 
exercises  all  the  corporate  powers.  The  vesti-j'  have  the 
supervision  and  control  and  are  the  sole  managers  of  the 
cori>oration  in  respect  to  its  temporalities.  St.  John's 
Chapel  belongs  to  the  Trinity  corporation,  and  not  to  the 
corj)orators  or  other  members  of  the  congregation.  In  decid- 
ing to  close  the  chajiel  the  vestry  did  not  exceed  its  powers, 
and  the  court  cannot  undertake  to  review  the  exercise  of 
their  discretion  or  judgment.  Burke  v  Rector,  etc.,  Trinity 
Church,  (;;{  Mi.sc.   ( N.  V.  i  43. 

Trust,  Conveyance  to  Bishop.  A  conveyance  of  real  i)rop- 
erty  to  Ihe  Bislioj)  of  (leorgia  for  the  use  of  the  church  in 
tlie  division  of  Georgia  created  a  trust  in  which  the  bishop 
became  trustee  by  virtue  of  his  office.  The  incorporation  of 
a  society  and  the  erection  of  the  house  of  worsliip.  and  the 
establishment  of  religious  services  in  connection  with  the 
property  conveyed  to  the  bishop,  did  not  transfer  the  title 
to  the  society,  but  it  was  still  held  by  the  bishoj)  in  trust, 
and  it  could  not  be  mortgaged  without  his  consent.  Beck- 
with  V  Rector,  etc.,  St.  Philip's  Parish,  69  Ga.  5H4. 

Trustees.  Cannot  Act  for  Two  Societies.  Several  persons 
were  wardens  and  vestrymen  in  both  church  societies.  As 
trustees  of  St.  James  they  procured  the  conveyance  of  cer- 
tain real  ])ro])erty  of  that  church,  without  consideration,  to 
the  Church  of  the  Redeemer.  It  was  held  that  by  this  con- 
veyance these  trustees  derived  some  advantage  as  trustees 
of  the  Church  of  the  Redeemer,  and,  being  agents  of  both 
societies,  the  transaction  was  deemed  hx  ihe  court  as  fraud- 


I'KOTESTANT  i:i'IS(T)PAL  CHrKCH  .'CT 

uleut,  and  the  deed  wa;s  set  aside.  Si.  James  (Miurcli  v 
Church  oi"  the  Kedeeiner,  45  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  ;J5l). 

Unincorporated  Society,  Cannot  Take  Title  to  Land.  The 
rector  brought  an  action  against  the  society  lor  nnitaid 
salary.  The  society  had  acquired  land  from  trustees  as  a 
site  on  which  to  erect  a  house  of  worship,  and  a  church  was 
built  on  the  west  i)art  of  the  lot.  The  society  was  not  then 
incorporated,  but  afterward  a  corporation  was  formed.  The 
corporation  being  indebted  to  the  rector,  conveyed  to  him 
iu  payment  of  his  claim,  the  east  half  of  the  lot.  The  law 
prohibited  the  acquisition  of  property  by  a  religious  society 
until  it  was  incorporated.  In  this  case  the  property  was 
acquired  by  the  society  before  incorporation,  and  there  was 
no  conveyance  to  it  afterward,  and  tlie  title  was  held  to  be 
in  the  grantors,  notwithstanding  the  attempted  conveyance 
to  the  society  and  its  subsequent  incorporation.  The  con- 
veyance to  the  rector  of  the  east  half  of  the  lot  was  made 
at  the  request  of  the  society'  by  the  trustees  who  had  orig- 
inally conveyed  it,  for  the  reason  that  these  trustees  still 
held  the  legal  title.  The  rector  by  accepting  the  deed  ob- 
tained a  conii)lete  title,  which  could  not  afterward  be  ques- 
tioned by  him.  by  the  trustees,  nor  by  the  society.  All  par- 
ties were  estoj)i>ed  from  claiming  any  defect  in  the  title. 
Skinner  v  (Jrace  (Minrch,  Mt.  Clemens,  54  Mich.  543. 

Vestry,  Cannot  Act  Without  Meeting.  The  vestrymen  of  a 
churcli  as  representatives  of  a  corporate  body,  must  meet  in 
order  to  take  olHcial  action.  They  cannot  act  singly,  upon 
the  streets,  or  wherever  they  may  be  found.  Tt  was  also  hebl 
that  the  necessity  of  a  meeting  was  not  obviated  by  the  fact 
that  a  paper  was  signed,  at  first  by  a  minority,  and  subse- 
quently by  a  nuijority  of  the  vestry,  but  without  a  meeting 
at  which  a  quorum  was  present.  Re  Ritteidiouse  Estate, 
140  I'a.  172. 

Vestry,  Casting  Vote.  A  churchwarden  presiding  has  the 
right  to  vote  on  every  question,  and  in  case  of  a  tie  may 
again  vote  and  dissolve  the  tie.  The  senior  churchwarden 
presiding  at   a   uieeting  of  the  vestry  which  liad  under  con- 


5r.s        'riii:  cinil  law  and  tiii;  cm  i^cir 

sidcrni  i<»ii  ;i  mnljoti  to  cull  ;i  rector,  vot('<l  on  the  nuiiii 
qiiesdoii,  tliiis  cicjiliiitf  ;i  tic.  mikI  tlici-ciipon  dccl.ifcd  Hk; 
niolion  lost.  It  Wiis  held  (ii;it  niid<'r  the  statulf;  tlic  jn-csid- 
iiiji  olliccr  iiii<;ht  Jij^aiii  vote  and  dissolve  the  tie,  and  that  his 
announcement  that  the  motion  was  lost  was  equivalent  to 
the  oastinj;  vote  in  the  negative.  People  v  (^'Imrcli  of  Atone- 
ment, 48  IJail).  (N.  V.)  cm. 

Note:  The  foregoing  case  was  decided  under  a  statute 
(laws  of  ISK),  (^hap.  (50,  sec.  1)  which  exi)ress]y  j)rovided 
that  the  ju-esiding  officer,  at  a  meeting  of  the  vestry  or  trus- 
tees, should  have  "the  casting  vote."  Section  42  of  the 
revised  Religious  Corjjorations  Law  of  190!>,  which  among 
other  things,  regulates  the  meetings  of  the  vestry  or  trus- 
tees, provides  that  at  a  meeting  of  the  vestry  or  trustees 
each  member  thereof  should  he  entitled  to  one  vote.  No 
provision  is  made  for  the  casting  vote.  Section  198  of  the 
new  act  which  regulates  the  meetings  of  boards  of  trustees 
generally,  contains  the  provision  that  "in  case  of  a  tie  vote 
at  a  meeting  of  the  trustees,  the  presiding  officer  of  such 
meeting  shall,  notwithstanding  he  has  voted  once,  have  an 
additional  casting  vote,"  but  by  section  100  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Churches  are  excluded  from  the  operation  of  the 
article  which  contains  this  provision.  See  as  to  Pennsyl- 
vania rule  subtitle  above,  Koctor,  casting  vote. 

Vestry,  Acting  without  Formal  Resolution.  The  vestry,  the 
governing  body  of  a  church,  could  authorize  the  rector,  who 
was  president  of  the  vestry,  to  act  as  its  agent  in  certain 
transactions  without  j)assing  a  formal  resolution  for  that 
purpose;  oral  authority  from  a  majority  of  the  members, 
given  during  a  session  of  the  body,  was  sufficient.  Cann  v 
Rector,  Church  of  the  Holy  Redeemer,  121  Mo.  App.  201. 

Vestry,  Increasing.  The  vote  of  a  Protestant  Episcopal 
church  to  increase  the  nund)er  of  vestrymen  does  not  atfect 
the  rights  and  powers  of  the  former  vestrymen  until  the 
additional  nuMubers  have  been  chosen.  Wardens,  Christ 
Church  V  Pope,  S  (Jray  (Mass.)  140. 

Vestry  Meetings.    To  constitute  a  legal  meeting  as  trustees 


riioTiosTANT  i:i'is(()rAL  ('iirK("ii         :a;\\ 

the  rector,  il'  IIkm-c  be  one,  and  one  clinrcli  wai-dcii,  loj;etlK'r 
with  five  vestrymen,  must  be  preseut.  Moore  v  Keel  or  St. 
Thomas,  4  Abb.  N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  51.  In  this  case  it  was  held 
that  five  of  the  eight  vestrymen  nuist  be  ])resent,  and  it 
made  no  ditfereuce  that  tliere  were  vacancies  in  the  ollice 
of  some  of  the  eight.  Tlie  statute  contein])lates  a  meeting 
by  a  uuijority  of  the  whole  nundier  authorized  by  the  stat- 
ute, and  not  a  majority  of  those  iu  ollice  at  a  particular 
time  without  regard  to  existing  vacancies. 

The  vestry  of  a  I'rotestant  Episcopal  Church  have  author- 
ity to  call  meetings  of  the  proprietors.  The  vestry  nmy 
transact  business  in  the  absence  of  both  wardens  if  a  major- 
ity of  all  their  members  are  present;  even  if  it  has  been 
voted  at  several  annual  meetings  that  one  warden  and  l(Mir 
vestrymen  constitute  a  quorum  for  transacting  business. 
Wardens,  Christ  Church  v  Pope,  8  Gray  (Mass.)  140. 

Vestry,  Powers.  The  society  was  incorporated  in  IS.")!). 
In  1S70  the  vestry  ado]»ted  the  so-called  free-church  })lan, 
under  which  pews  were  appropriated  to  all  regular  attend- 
ants at  Sunday  morning  services,  without  reference  to  the 
amount  contributed,  but  existing  assignments  were  substan- 
tially preserved,  no  change  being  made  without  the  pew - 
holder's  consent.  It  was  held  that  the  vestry  had  power  to 
make  bj'^-laws  concei-ning  the  assignment  and  occupancy  of 
pews.  Livingston  v  Trinity  Church,  Trenton,  45  N.  J.  Law 
230. 

In  Beckett  v  Lawrence,  7  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  40.*?,  it 
was  held  that  the  vestrymen  have  power  to  remove,  or  cause 
to  be  removed.  ])ersons  disdnhing  religious  services  in  the 
church. 

In  Cushman  v  Church  of  Cood  Sheplieid,  ISS  i'a.  Si.  |:'>S, 
it  was  held  that  the  vestry  of  Protestant  Episcoi)aI  <]iiir(  lies. 
or  congregations,  represent  the  laity,  and  the  church 
charter  must  be  deemed  to  indnde  the  act  of  1S."»5  relative  to 
lay  control.  The  vestry  had  i»ower  to  disjiose  of  (  hunh 
])i'operty  under  ecclesiastical  rules,  in  the  interests  of  tiif 
church,  unless  they  atlem}»t  to  violate  a  condition  subject  to 


:>H)        'iMii:  ("i\  iL  \..\\\  AM)  'I'm:  cwmkii 

^\lli^Il  llic  properly  Wiis  ;^r;iii  tc(l,  or  iiioncv  to  |»iii«li;is('  :iiitl 
build  it  waH  contributed. 

Tbe  projierty  consisted  of  :i  liouse  of  worship.  Two  of  the 
windows  wei'c  memorials  foi'  IJishojis  liowman  and  Kemp<'r. 
The  society  proposed  to  remove  the  <iMn<li  edifice  to  anotlu-r 
town,  and  include  the  memorial  windows  in  the  new  b\iibl- 
ing'.  The  pi'oposition  to  cliange  the  location  of  the  house 
of  worship  was  approved,  the  court  observing  that  ''we  must 
assume  that  both  tlie  corporation  an<l  the  contributors  mach' 
the  condition  subject  to  (lie  law  of  the  chnrcli  that  if  the 
congregation  became  depleted  in  numbers  an<l  substance  by 
reason  of  death  an<l  removals  or  shifting  of  jtopulation,  this 
particular  church  might  be  dispose<l  of,  and  all  the  associa- 
tions connected  with  it  should,  as  nearly  as  possible,  be 
transferred  to  a  successor  wisely  located  in  a  new  field. 

Vestry,  Promissory  Notes.  At  a  i)arish  meeting  of  an  Epis- 
copal church,  the  vestry  submitted  a  report  that  it  had  ar- 
ranged to  purchase  lots  for  the  church  and  rectory,  and 
that  the  Church  Association  of  Michigan  had  signified  its 
willingness  to  advance  a  certain  amount,  provided  the  prop- 
erty should  be  deeded  to  the  association  in  trust  for  the 
parish,  and  that  interest  at  seven  per  cent  should  be  paid 
on  the  money  advanced,  and  the  principal  should  be  paid  in 
oue-huudred-dollar  installments.  The  meeting  authorized 
the  vestry  to  carry  out  the  arrangement.  It  was  held  that 
the  vestry  was  authorized  to  give  notes  for  the  amount 
secured.     Miller  v  Childs,  120  Mich.  G30. 

Virginia,  Early  Church.  At  a  very  early  period  the  reli- 
gious establishment  of  England  seems  to  have  been  adopted 
in  the  colony  of  Virginia,  and,  of  course,  the  common  law 
upon  that  subject,  so  far  as  it  was  ai>plicable  to  the  circum- 
stances of  that  colony.  The  local  division  into  i)arishes  for 
ecclesiastical  i)urposes  can  be  very  early  traced ;  and  the 
subsequent  laws  enacted  for  religious  purposes  evidently 
presuppose  the  existence  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  with  its 
general  rights  and  authorities  gi-owing  out  of  the  common 
law.     ^^hat  those  rights  and  authorities  are  need  not  be 


PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  571 

mimitely  stated.  It  is  sufficient  that,  among  other  things, 
the  church  was  capable  of  receiving  endowments  of  laud, 
and  that  the  minister  of  the  parish  was,  during  his  incum- 
bency, seized  of  the  freehold  of  its  inheritable  property,  as 
emphatically  persona  ecclesw,  and  capable,  as  a  sole  cor- 
poration, of  transmitting  that  inheritance  to  liis  successors. 
The  churchwardens  also  were  a  corporate  body  clothed  with 
authority  and  guardianship  over  the  repairs  of  the  church 
and  its  personal  ])roperty ;  and  the  other  tem])oral  concerns 
of  the  parish  were  submitted  to  a  vestry  composed  of  i)er- 
sons  selected  for  that  purpose.  In  order  more  effectually  to 
cherish  and  supj)ort  religious  institutions,  and  to  detine  the 
authorities  and  rights  of  the  Episcopal  officers,  the  Legisla- 
ture from  time  to  time  enacted  laws  on  this  subject.  By 
the  statutes  of  IfUil,  chaps.  1,  2,  3,  10,  and  1U(>7,  chap.  .'•>,  pro- 
vision was  made  for  the  erection  and  repairs  of  ( Iiui-ches 
and  chapels  of  ease;  for  the  laying  out  of  glebes  and  <Iinr(  li 
lands,  and  the  building  of  a  dwelling  house  for  tlie  minister; 
for  the  making  of  assessments  and  taxes  for  tliese  and  other 
parochial  purposes;  for  the  appointment  of  ( hiiic  liwai-deus 
to  keei)  the  church  in  repair,  and  to  provide  books,  orna- 
ments, etc.;  and,  lastly,  for  the  election  of  a  vestry  of  twelve 
persons  by  the  parishioners,  whose  duty  it  was,  by  these  ami 
subsequent  statutes,  among  other  tilings,  to  make  and  pro- 
l)ortion  levies  an<l  assessments,  and  to  purchase  glebes  and 
erect  dwelling  houses  for  the  ministers  in  each  respective 
parish.  It  is  conceded  that,  after  the  Revolution,  the  Ejiis- 
copal  Church  no  longer  i-etained  its  chnracteT'  as  an  exclu- 
sive religious  establishment.  And  there  v.iu  Ik*  no  doubt 
that  it  was  com])etent  to  the  jteoplc  mikI  to  the  Legislature 
to  dej)rive  it  of  its  sujteriority  over  other  religious  sects,  and 
to  withhold  from  it  any  support  1»\  public  tnxniioii.  T(  rrett 
V  Taylor,  0  Cranch  iV.  S. )    ID. 

Virginia,  Education  Society,  ri-oleslant  i:piscop;il  f^du- 
cation  Society  v  Clnircliiiiiiirs  Kep's  80  \'a.  71S.  susinincd 
a  be<piest  to  tlie  Protcstnnt  ilpiscopiil  Edm-ation  Society  of 
\'irgiiiia,  such  be(piesl  to  i)e  used  exclusively  for  ediicaling 


571'        Tin:  CIS  II.  LAW   .\M>  riii:  cmKcii 

|M)(ir  \  (»iiii;4  iiicii  lor  llic  I']|)is((»|i;il  iiiiiiist  i-y,  upon  llic  hjisis 
(»r  ('\  ;iii^f('lic;il   |)T'iiifi|»l('s  ;is  now  ('st.-ihlishcd. 

Wardens  and  Vestry,  Status.  Wiirdpiis  and  vestry  of  K\)\h- 
«'oi)al  societies  are  the  known  and  recoj^nized  representatives 
and  coniinittee  of  siieh  societies;  and  any  he(iuest  to  such 
wardens  and  vestry  is  a  heciuest  to  the  society  itself,  or  to 
them  as  trustees  for  its  use.  Trinity  Ch.  v  Hall  et  al,  22 
Conn.   \'.\'2. 

Warfield  College.  Testatrix  devised  fifty  acres  of  land, 
and  gave  tlie  ]»roceeds  of  another  fifty  acres  for  the  purj)ose 
of  establishing  Warfield  College  in  Maryland,  to  be  a  school 
for  boys.  The  devise  and  beqne.st  were  made  to  the  conven- 
tion of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  Diocese  of 
Maryland.  The  fifty  acres  of  land  included  buildings  and 
improvements.  The  devise  and  beqne.st  were  sustained.  The 
Protestant  Episcopal  Convention  was  held  entitled  to  take 
the  bequest  and  devise,  and  they  were  declared  valid.  Hal- 
sey  v  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  Mary- 
land Diocese,  75  Md.  275. 

Western  New  York  Diocese.  A  bequest  to  the  Parochial 
Fund  of  the  Diocese  of  Western  New  York  in  trust  for  the 
maintenance  of  religious  services  in  a  private  unincorpor- 
ated memorial  chapel  was  held  void,  for  the  reason  that  the 
society  had  no  power  to  take  such  a  trust  under  its  charter, 
and  also  that  the  charter  contemplated  an  organized  body 
having  legal  existence ;  and  the  language  of  the  will  in  ques- 
tion did  not  specify  any  particular  pari.sh  or  any  organized 
body  which  should  receive  the  income.  Butler  v  Trustees, 
Parochial  Fund  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  Western  New 
York,  t»2  Ilun.  (  N.  Y. )  DO. 

Widows  and  Orphans'  Fund.  A  fund  known  as  the  widows 
and  orphans'  fund  was  raised  by  subscription  in  1804,  "for 
the  benefit  of  the  widows  and  orphan  children  that  may 
be  left  by  the  future  ministers  of  this  church."  The  fund 
was  largely  increased  by  accumulations.  It  was  held  that 
the  fund  ])rovided  for  the  support  of  widows  and  orphans 
of  a  particular  class,  was  an  eleemosynary  charity,  and  in 


rKOTi:STANT   I:PIS((H'AL  (^HUKCH  iu'.i 

tliis  ciise  fouM  !>('  apportioned  and  dislrihutctl  tor  tlic  par 
pose  of  carrying  the  charity  into  ett'ect.  Sears  v  Atioi-ney 
General,  19:>,  Mass.  551. 

Worship,  Rector's  Authority.  Under  Canon  15  (»!'  ilic  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church  the  rector  of  the  ])arish,  subject  to 
the  canonical  authority  of  the  bishop,  may  <leterniine  and 
prescribe  what  services  shall  be  held  in  a  church  and  in  what 
manner  and  by  wliom  they  shall  be  performed.  Burke  v 
Rector,  etc.,  of  Trinity  Church,  G3  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  43. 


QUO  WARRANTO 


Trustees,  574. 
Vestrymen,  574. 


Trustees.  In  au  action  of  ejectment  by  one  set  of  trustees 
against  another  set,  both  cbiiniing  to  have  been  regnhirly 
elected  an«l  entitled  to  the  pos.session  of  the  property,  it  was 
hehl  that  the  titJe  to  the  office  of  tnistees  could  not  be  <leter- 
mined  in  that  action,  but  that  the  question  could  only  be 
determined  by  quo  warranto  instituted  by  the  attorney  gen- 
eral. Concord  Society,  Strykersville  v  Stanton,  38  Hun 
(K  Y.)  1. 

In  an  action  by  the  society  to  recover  possession  of  real 
j)roj)erty,  the  defendants  attacked  the  title  of  the  trustees 
of  the  i)laintitf  and  alleged  that  they,  the  defendants,  were 
the  true  trustees.  The  court  said  the  question  could  not  be 
tried  collaterally,  but  only  by  quo  warranto.-  First  Presby- 
terian Society,  Gallipolis  v  Smithers,  12  Ohio  St.  248. 

Quo  warranto  was  held  the  proper  remedy  to  test  the  title 
to  the  office  of  trustees  of  the  society.  Commonwealth  ex 
rel  Gordon  v  Graham,  (54  Pa.  St.  339;  see  also  Schilstra  v 
Van  Den  Heuvel,  82  N.  J.  Eq.  (U2. 

Vestrymen.  This  writ  is  available  to  try  the  title  to  the 
office  of  vestrymen  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 
State  V  Stewart,  6  Houst.  (Del.)  359. 


574 


REFORMED  CHURCH 

Description,  575. 

Diversion  of  property,  576. 

Division  of  society,  effect,  570. 

Legacy,  limitation,  570. 

Succession  to  Calvinist  Society,  570. 

Successor  to  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  570. 

Trust,  intention  of  testatrix,  577. 

Description,  1<  seems  tliat  the  peculiar  docti'iiies  repre- 
sented originally  by  the  Calvinist  society  of  the  last  century, 
and  embodied  in  the  Heidelberg  Conlessioii,  have  been  held 
under  ditt'erent  names  by  the  Keformed  Church  in  this  coun- 
try for  more  than  a  century.  Those  names  have  been 
affected  by  various  cii-cumstances,  as  the  natioinility  of  the 
mendiers  and  the  location  of  the  churches.  Among  these 
designations  were  "High  Dutch,"  "German  Presbyterians," 
and  "Sacramentarians."'  So,  under  the  general  denomina- 
tion Calvinists,  was  included  the  term  "German  Calvinists"; 
and  the  opinion  was  expressed  by  one  witness  that  the  Re- 
formed Church  of  the  Ignited  States  is  the  oidy  historical 
successor  of  the  church  intended  by  the  name  of  the  Calvin- 
ist Society. 

A  distinctive  feature  in  the  belief  of  the  religionists 
known  as  the  Keformed  Church,  represented  under  these 
different  denominational  titles,  is  their  adhesion  to  the 
tenets  of  the  Heidelberg  Confession,  unembarrassed  by  other 
distinguishing  points  of  doctrine  which  are  held  by  otluM- 
religious  bodies  having  a  Calvinist ic  origin.  It  was  said 
that  the  dogmas  of  that  confession  coiistit ut<'  the  <reed  of 
the  Keformed  Cluirch  essentially  as  they  were  maintained  by 
the  Calvinistic  Society  during  the  last  century,  ever  since 
their  first  ])romulgation  by  tlie  Calvinist  brancli  of  the  re- 
formers.   Kbbinghaus  V  Killian,  1  Mackey  (D.  of  C.  i  li17. 

575 


r.7(;        THI-;  cinii.  f.aw  and  riii;  ciii  immi 

Diversion  of  Property.  An  jiclion  li.v  tlic  oii^rinal  society 
.i^.iinsl  ;i  scccditiff  pni'ly  wliicli  IkkI  soiiL,dit  to  estnblisli  a 
society  adhering  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Lutheran  Cliurch  to 
prevent  the  diversion  of  the  property  and  the  appropriation 
of  it  by  the  Lutherans  was  sustained,  in  Baker  v  Ducker,  70 

Cai.  :5<;r>. 

Division  of  Society,  Effect.  The  defendant,  a  pewholder  and 
an  otticer  of  tlie  churdi,  was  sued  for  two  years'  ]»ew  rent. 
He  resisted  payment  on  the  ground  that  his  liability  had 
been  terminated,  or  at  least  suspended,  by  the  action  of 
certain  menib(>rs  of  the  society  wlio  had  practically  reor- 
ganized it  in  an  illegal  manner,  and  had  usurped  all  author- 
ity, excluded  the  existing  officers  from  their  offices  and  em- 
ployed a  minister  who  had  not  been  sanctioned  by  the  synod, 
and  otherwise  arbitrarily  assumed  control  and  manage- 
ment of  the  society  contrary  to  the  rules  and  Discipline  of 
the  church.  The  court  held  that  the  pewholder  was  not 
liable  for  pew  rent  under  these  circumstances.  Ebaugh  v 
Hendel,  5  Watts.  (Pa.)  43. 

Legacy,  Limitation.  In  Keii)er's  estate,  5  l*a.  Co.  Ct. 
5G8,  the  society  was  held  entitled  to  a  legacy  which  was 
given  for  the  erection  of  a  Reformed  church,  to  be  paid 
only  in  case  there  should  be  no  debt  on  the  church  property, 
or  until  the  legacy,  with  accrued  interest,  would  place  the 
church  entirely  out  of  debt.  The  testator  during  his  lifetime 
contributed  to  the  society,  which  was  then  engaged  in  the 
erection  of  a  church,  and  the  church  was  erected  three  years 
before  he  died. 

Succession  to  Calvinist  Society.  In  Ebbinghaus  v  Killian. 
1  Mackey  (Dist  of  C.)  -47,  the  trustees  of  the  society  were 
recognized  as  the  lawful  successors  of  the  Calvinist  Society 
mentioned  in  a  deed  of  trust,  and  entitled  to  the  beneficial 
interest  in  the  lot  in  controversy,  and  to  its  rents,  issues, 
and  profits,  as  against  a  Lutheran  Society. 

Successor  to  Reformed  Dutch  Church.  In  1871  the  name  of 
the  General  Society  of  the  Keformed  Dutch  Church  in 
the  States  and  Territories  of  the  United  States  was  changed 


KICFOKMEI)  CHLKCH  577 

from  "The  Reformed  Dutch  Church  of  America"  to  "The 
Reformed  Church  of  America,"  and  after  that  time  the 
word  "Dutch"  was  omitted  from  the  corporate  names  of 
the  churches  constituting  that  society.  De  Camp  v  Dohbins 
20  N.  J.  Eq.  .30.     See  article  on  Reformed  Dutdi  Churdi. 

Trust,  Intention  of  Testatrix.  Testatrix  made  a  residuary 
hecpiest  to  tlie  society  "to  promote  the  relij^ions  interests 
of  the  said  church,  and  to  aid  the  missionary,  educaticjnal, 
and  benevoleut  enterprises  to  which  the  said  church  is  in 
tlie  habit  of  contributing."  It  was  held  that  this  society 
was  tlie  one  intended  as  the  object  of  the  bequest,  and  tliat 
a  misnomer  of  a  corporation  in  a  gift  to  it  will  not  defeat 
the  gift.  The  trust  was  sustained.  De  Camjj  v  Dobbins,  20 
N.  J.  Eq.  30. 


REFORMED  DUTCH  CHURCH 

Origin  in  America,  578. 

History,  579. 

Classis  of  1822,  580. 

Consolidation,  when  void,  580. 

Congregation,  right  to  withdraw,  581. 

Consistory,  general  power,  581. 

Division  of  society,  adverse  possession,  .581. 

Division  of  society,  effect,  581. 

Judicatories,  583. 

Minister,  deviation  in  doctrine,  no  right  to  u.se  pulpit,  584. 

Property,  transfer  to  another  denomination  prohibited,  584. 

Society,  how  formed,  585. 

Taxation  of  parsonage,  585. 

Theological  seminary,  legacy  sustained,  585. 

Trust,  when  deviation  in  doctrine  not  objectionable,  585. 

Trust,  when  valid,  586. 

Origin  in  America.  Among  the  earlj'  settlers  of  New  Jersey 
aud  New  York  were  many  emigrants  from  the  United  Prov- 
inces. They  did  not,  like  the  settlers  of  New  England,  seek 
an  asylum  from  the  religious  persecutions  of  their  native 
land,  but,  like  them,  they  brought  here  their  industry,  their 
virtues,  and  especiallj^  their  ardent  attachment  and  stead- 
fast adherence  to  the  religious  faith  of  their  forefathers.  As 
early  as  1G22  congregations  were  formed.  In  process  of 
time  these  became  numerous,  spreading  over  a  large  portion 
of  the  then  inhabited  parts  of  New  Jersey  and  New  York, 
each  enjoying  its  religious  worship  and  privileges,  all  guided 
by  the  doctrines  of  Heidelberg  and  Dordrecht,  and  most  of 
them  holding  that  competent  and  safe  spiritual  guides  and 
teachers  were  to  be  found  only  in  the  mother  country,  where 
all  their  early  clergymen  were  either  born  or  educated. 
Until  the  year  1771  no  general  system  of  church  govern- 
ment  was  organized.      In   that  year  the  numerous   docks, 

578 


REFORMED  DUTCH  CHURCH  57") 

somewhat  distracted  and  divided,  inure  especially  on  the 
question  whether  adequate  ministers  could  be  raised  here 
or  must  be  sought  abroad,  were  brought  together  into  a  com- 
mon fold.  A  general  system  of  church  organi/.ation,  similar 
in  outline  to  the  Reformed  Dutch  in  Holland,  and  substan- 
tially the  same  as  now  exists,  was  then  vuianimously,  and 
as  we  may  infer  from  other  public  records,  cordially  adopted. 

In  the  year  17!M),  when  the  New  Jersey  statute  for  the 
incorporation  of  religious  societies  was  enacted,  all  those 
who  professed  the  faith  and  claimed  to  be  members  of  the 
Reformed  Dutch  Church  were  divided  among  numerous  con- 
gregations but  unit(Ml  in  a  general  ecclesiastical  frame  of 
government,  comi)rehending  a  consistory  of  each  congrega- 
tion, a  classis  having  a  jurisdiction  over  a  few  neighboring 
congregations,  a  particular  synod,  endiracing  a  few  classes, 
and  a  General  Synod  having  jurisdiction  over  the  whole. 
Their  affairs  were  regulated  according  to  the  ancient  con- 
stitution of  their  church;  an  authentic  copy  of  which  was 
l>ublished  in  17J);>,  and  another  under  the  authority  of  their 
highest  judicature  in  the  year  1815.  Den  ex  dem.  Day  v 
Bolton,  12  N.  .1.  L.  20(5. 

History.  In  1772  the  Dutch  Church  in  the  United  Stales 
sei)arate<l,  so  far  as  absolute  authority  is  concerned,  from 
the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  Holland,  and  establisluMl  a 
general  system  of  church  judicatories  in  this  country. 

Each  separate  church  is  governed  by  a  consistory  c<nn- 
posed  of  the  minister,  elders,  and  deacons,  froni  which  an 
appeal  lies  to  the  classis,  a  body  consisting  <tf  rei>resent:i- 
tives  from  the  several  churches  uiuler  its  charge;  the  scvt  r;il 
classes  send  delegates  to  a  ]>articular  synod,  which  is  tlic 
next  judicatory  in  order,  from  which  bitter  body  :ni  appcsil 
lies  to  the  General  Synod,  ;is  a  tribunal  of  the  last  icsoii. 
and  no  particular  chui<h,  or  its  members  or  olliccrs.  can 
lawfully  withdi-aw  Ironi  the  connection;  also.  ]>ast(»is  and 
nnnisters  of  the  several  churches  are  provided  and  arc 
T'e<inii'ed  to  be  appi'oved  by  the  classis  to  whicli  the  jiartic- 
nlar  chnrch  is  sidtjed.     .Miller  v  (Jable,  2  henio  (  .\.  V.i    r.l2. 


-.so        Tiir:  ("i\iL  LAW   AM»  Till:  <iii  i;*  n 

Classis  of  1822.  In  OcIoIxt,  ISL'L',  Icii  i.crhoiis— live  iiiiii- 
istei's  and  live  elders  and  deacons — met  and  oi};aniz('<l  tli«Mn- 
selves  into  an  ecclesiastical  i>ody,  which  they  called  the 
Classis  of  the  True  Kefornied  Dnlch  Chnrch  in  tiie  United 
States  of  America.  They  pnblishcd  to  the  woild  the  reasons 
and  {^rounds  of  their  orj^anization.  They  conijdained  with 
minuteness  of  detail  that  the  church  once  noted  for  itH 
soundness  in  the  faith  had  become  corrupt  in  its  prin- 
ciples and  practice.  They  alleged  a  prevailing  laxness  of 
discii)line  and  prostitution  of  the  sacred  ordinances  of  the 
gospel,  and  declared  as  follows:  "We,  the  undersigned,  min- 
isters, elders  and  deacons,  have  unanimously  agreed  to 
restore  the  church  to  its  original  purity,  and  together  with 
the  congregations  under  our  care,  do  unite  in  declaring 
ourselves  the  True  Reformed  Dutch  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  as  a  rule  of  our  faith  and  practice 
to  abide  by  all  the  standards  ratified  and  established  in  the 
National  Synod,  held  at  Dordrecht  in  the  years  1018  and 
101 1),  without  the  least  alteration,  by  which  act  we  do  not 
separate  from,  but  remain  the  identical  Reformed  Dutch 
Church." 

At  the  same  meeting  they  resolved  that  until  their  nuni 
bers  were  sufficiently  increased  to  be  divided  into  classes 
and  synods,  the  judicatories  in  the  church  should  consist 
of  only  two  descriptions — consistories  and  a  classis;  and 
the  classis  should  be  known  and  distinguished  by  the  name 
of  the  True  Reformed  Dutch  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America.  This  classis  not  having  been  organized  in  the 
manner  provided  and  sanctioned  by  the  constitution  of  the 
Reformed  Dutch  Church,  cannot  be  deemed  a  constitutional 
judicatory  of  that  church.  Indeed,  they  did  not  thus  claim 
so  to  be,  but  avow  themselves  to  have  separated  from  and 
to  be  disconnected  with  that  body.  Den  ex  dem.  Day  v 
Bolton,  12  N.  J.  L.  200. 

Consolidation,  When  Void.  Sutter  v  Reformed  Dutch 
Church,  0  Wright  (Pa.)  503,  contains  a  history  of  the  move- 
ment by  which  it  was  sought  to  unite  this  society  with  a 


REFOJiMIOI)  DUTCH  CHURCH  581 

branch  of  the  Low  Dutch  Reformed  Chim-h,  and  it  whn  hcl<l 
that  such  atteni]»t<'<l  change  was  void. 

Congregation,  Right  to  Withdraw.  In  I'ulis  v  Isernian,  71 
N.  .1.  Law  40S,  it  was  held  that  each  particular  congrega- 
tion had  the  riglit  to  withdraw  from  the  classis  and  synod 
with  which  it  had  been  connected  and  become  inch'iieiKh'iit. 
without  loss  of  ecclesiastical  or  civil  function. 

Consistory,  General  Power.  The  Consistory  of  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Ch.  of  I'rattsville  v  lirandow,  52  Barb.  (N.  Y. )  22S, 
sustained  the  validity  of  a  bequest  of  this  society  against 
the  objection  that  a  consistory  was  not  authorized  lo  con 
trol  the  bequest,  it  being  claimed  that  the  board  of  trustees 
j)ossessed  this  power.  The  will  expressly  gave  the  bequest 
to  the  consistory  to  be  used  as  they  might  deem  best. 

Division  of  Society,  Adverse  Possession.  The  High  Dutch 
Reformed  Church  at  Schoharie  ivceived  in  1S;!.~>  a  dee»l  of 
land  in  Gallupville,  on  which  a  house  of  worship  was  erected, 
and  the  church  at  Schoharie  and  the  church  at  (}allui)villi' 
were  both  occui)ied  by  the  society  until  IS  14,  \\hen  action 
was  taken  resulting  in  the  division  of  the  society,  and  that 
l)art  of  the  congi-egation  living  at  and  near  (Jallupville  was 
set  oft"  fi'om  the  j>arent  congregation  with  the  expectation 
that  a  distinct  society  w«»uld  be  organized  at  (iallupville 
according  to  the  rules  of  the  denomination.  The  church 
ju'operty  at  (Jallupville  was  also  set  off  to  tiie  new  socic  ty. 
No  formal  title  was  transferred,  and  conld  not  be.  for  ihc 
reason  that  the  portion  of  the  congi-egation  at  (iallnitvillc 
was  not  then  inc()i'i>oi'at(MK  bnt  tlie  action  taken  was  dccnicil 
to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  liglit  by  adxcrse  possession.  The 
(lallnitville  society  continncil  in  possession  (»r  the  in-oiierly 
from  1(S44  to  ISC*!),  \\lien  it  \\;is  incor]»orated,  and  the  jii'op- 
erty  then  continniMJ  in  ]i(tssession  of  the  c(»i]ioi  ation.  whiili 
succeeded  lo  all  tlie  rights  of  jiropcity  possessed  or  enjoyed 
by  the  unincori>orated  society,  liel'ormed  Clmrcli,  (!allnp- 
ville  V  Schoolcraft,  (;5  N.  V.  i:;i. 

Division  of  Society.  Effect.  The  l(»cal  socieiy  was  incorjio- 
i-afed  in  \S{)U.     On  the  same  day  two  tracts  of  land  of  ab(Mil 


5X2  Tin:  (M\IL   LAW  AND  Till:  CiilliCH 

l\V<'iil\  tlircc  ;i<i('s  wri'c  coiivcyrd  to  tliciii  ill  lln'ir  coritol*:!  tr 
iiiiiiic.  Tlic  ollicrrs  of  llic  socicly  look  pdsscssioii  of  the 
property,  iiiid  icMcivcd  ;iimI  used  tli<*  I'ciits  and  profits.  Later 
there  was  a  division  in  llic  society,  resultin*;  in  the  election 
of  two  sets  of  ollicers,  each  claiming  to  be  tlie  tru(;  legal 
incnnibents,  and  entitled  to  hohl  the  proj)erty.  lioth  partie.s 
admit  that  the  premises  belong  to  the  corporation.  Both 
admit  that  the  minister,  elders,  and  deacons,  for  the  time 
being  of  the  KefornuMl  Dntch  (Jhurch  in  the  lOnglish  neigh- 
borhood, are  entitled  to  the  possession.  The  case  involve*! 
the  question  as  to  which  of  these  ](ersons  weie  the  trustees. 
The  action  was  brought  by  the  trustees  out  of  possession. 

This  congregation  was  originally  attached  to  the  Classis 
of  ITackensack.  On  a  division  of  that  classis  in  1800  the 
congregation  was  placed  under  the  supervision  of  the  Classis 
of  Bergen.  By  the  incorporating  act  the  ministers,  elders, 
and  deacons  became  in  fact  the  trustees  of  the  society,  and 
the  act  did  not  require  an  election  of  trustees  as  such.  In 
1S24  a  part  of  the  congregation  withdrew  and  dissolved  the 
relations  of  the  society  with  the  Classis  of  Bergen,  denying 
the  authority  of  the  Classis  of  Bergen,  and  of  the  General 
Synod,  because  those  bodies  had  departed  from  the  doctrine 
and  standards  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church.  The  with- 
drawal in  182J:  included  the  minister,  elders,  and  deacons. 
The  remaining  members  of  the  local  society  continued  as 
members  of  the  congregation  in  the  English  neighborhood. 
Their  standing  in  the  church  was  not  affected  by  the  with- 
drawal of  the  officers.  The  seceding  ])ortion  of  the  congre- 
gation attached  itself  to  the  recently  organized  classis  of 
the  True  Keformed  Dutch  Church  in  America,  but  that 
church  or  organization  was  not  a  Reformed  Dutch  Church, 
and,  therefore,  the  withdrawing  ministers,  elders,  and  dea- 
cons, who  attached  themselves  to  this  new  organization, 
known  as  the  Classis  of  1S22,  ceased  to  be  members  of  the 
ancient  Reformed   Dutch  Church. 

On  the  18th  of  February,  182+,  the  Classis  of  Bergen  sus- 
pended the  minister  of  this  society,  and  declared  vacant  llu' 


REFOJ{Mi:i)  DLTCII  CHT'KCH  oS.i 

seats  of  the  elders  ami  deacons  as  iikmiiIkm><  «>t  ilu-  (((nsistory 
of  the  churdi  at  the  Hny,lish  iieigliboi-hood,  and  deposed 
them  from  their  resj>e(tive  offices.  No  appeal  was  takeu 
from  the  action  of  the  elassis.  The  classis  ordei'ed  a  new 
election,  whidi  was,  accordingly,  held  and  confirmed  at  a 
snl)se<|n«Mit  meeting  of  the  classis.  Tlie  trustees  so  elected 
were  declared  to  be  the  legal  repiesent;iti\('s  of  the  original 
society,  and  entitled  to  the  possession  of  liic  proiterty.  Den 
ex  dem.  Day  v  Bolton,  12  N.  J.  iMMI. 

A  case  involving  the  status  of  the  Keformed  Dutch  tMiurch 
in  Bergen  has  already  been  noted.  See  preceding  note.  The 
case  now  nnder  consideration  was  for  the  foreclosure  of  a 
mortgage  given  by  the  consistory  of  the  church,  composed 
of  the  minister,  elders,  and  deacons  constituting  trustees 
before  they  were  de])osed  and  removed  by  the  Classis  of 
Bergen.  The  debt  on  which  the  mortgage  was  jturported 
to  have  been  based  having  been  sufficiently  established,  the 
court  held  tlie  mortgage  to  be  valid  and  capable  of  enforce- 
ment.   Doremus  v  Dutch  Keformed  Church,  .'5  X.  ■].  \a\.  :!.">2. 

The  minister  and  members  of  the  consistory  wiiiuhew 
from  the  denomination  and  joiiuMl  the  I'resbyterian  Church 
but  still  claimed  the  right  to  hold  the  proi>erty.  It  was  held 
that  the  minority  adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  original 
denomination  were  entitled  to  the  possession  and  control  of 
the  church  proi)erty.  True  Keformed  Dutch  Church  v  Iser- 
nmn,  64  N.  J.  L.  SOU. 

Judicatories.  Under  the  constitution  of  this  church  there 
are  four  ecclesiastical  judicatories:  (  1  i  The  cousistory.  com- 
|»osed  of  the  ministers,  elders,  und  deacons;  (L'l  the  classis, 
comiiosed  of  all  the  ministei-s,  and  an  elder  delegated  froiu 
each  consistory  within  certain  bounds;  (:!i  the  particulai' 
synod,  composed  of  three  ministers  and  three  elders  from 
ea<h  classis  within  <('i*tain  bounds  of  the  whole  country.  In 
these  assemblies,  or  judicatories,  it  is  pi-ovided  that  e<-clesi- 
astical  nuitters  only  shall  be  transacted,  and  thai  a  greater 
asseiubly  shall  take  cognizance  of  those  things  alone  which 
could  not  be  determined  in  a  less,  or  that  appertain  to  the 


."isi        'nil;  ('i\iL  LAW  AM>  I'lii:  (  iiikch 

cliiiiclics   or   (((iiurr;^;!!  ions    in    •^('nci;il    wliiili    (((inpose   sucll 
Mil  Jisst'inlily.     ('(•iiiiiil   \    lid',    riotcsliinl    hntcli   Clinrch,  Tti 

N.  V.  r>r,i. 

Minister,  Deviation  in  Doctrine,  No  Right  to  Use  Pulpit.  In 
Siller  V  Sp;iii<;l('r,  I  I'liihi.  (I'a.)  :{;*,1,  the  union  of  the  First 
liefornied  Dulcli  Church  of  the  (Mty  and  vicinity  of  IMiila- 
(h'li)hia  with  the  synod  of  the  Kefonned  Dutch  (Church  of  the 
United  States  contenijdated  a  spiritual  connection  and  none 
oilier,  and  did  not  involve  the  jiennanent  submission  of 
tlie  former  to  the  ecclesiastical  judicatories  of  the  latter, 
nor  required  the  property  of  the  church  to  be  used  for  the 
]>romulgation  and  supj)ort  of  the  doctrinal  faith  of  the 
synod.  The  said  church  was  founded  as  a  Calviuistic 
church;  and  it  was  the  duty  of  courts  of  justice  to  prevent 
the  application  of  its  property  to  religious  uses  different 
from  those  that  were  originalh^  intended  by  the  donors  and 
those  who  established  the  church.  No  person  who  does  not 
receive  and  preach  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  and  the 
entire  system  of  Calviuistic  theology  as  received  and  taught 
by  the  said  church,  can  have  any  right  to  its  pulpit,  and  a 
court  of  equity  will  restrain  such  person  from  officiating 
therein. 

Property,  Transfer  to  Another  Denomination  Prohibited.  A 
large  number  of  members  of  this  society  sought  to  form 
a  corporate  union  with  the  Western  Presbyterian  Church 
of  Philadel])hia,  under  the  title  of  the  Inimanuel  Presby- 
terian Cliurdi,  the  effect  of  which  would  be  to  merge  both 
societies  in  one,  and  transfer  all  their  property  to  the  new 
societ3^  The  original  society  was  established  as  a  Reformed 
Dutch  Church,  and  a  house  of  worship  was  erected  by  con- 
tributions from  the  members  of  the  society  and  others.  The 
society  became  connected  with  the  Classis  of  Philadelphia. 
The  real  proiiert\'  which  at  first  was  held  by  trustees  was 
afterwar<l  conveyed  to  the  society  as  suclu  All  the  pastors 
of  the  church  were  of  the  Dutch  denomination  and  members 
of  the  Philadelphia  Classis.  Tt  was  held  that  the  situation 
constituted  a  trust  which  could  not  be  violated  by  trans- 


ki:f(>jlmi:i)  inTcii  cm  kcu  585 

lerriiig  the  [iroperty  to  the  I'resbyteriaii  Society  and  form- 
ing a  eonsolidutiou  with  it.  Wiienever  a  chnirli  or  religions 
society  has  been  dnly  constituted,  as  in  connection  witli,  or 
in  subordination  to  some  ecclesiastical  organization  or  form 
of  church  government,  and  as  a  church  so  connected  or  sub- 
ordinate, has  acquired  property  by  subscriptions,  donations, 
or  otherwise,  it  cannot  break  ott"  this  connection  and  unite 
with  some  other  religious  organization,  or  become  indcpentl 
ent  save  at  the  expense  of  imjiairing  its  title  to  the  i)roperty 
so  acquired.    Jones  v  Wadsworth,  11  I'hila.  (Ta.)  -27. 

Society,  How  Formed.  From  the  constitution  of  the  Re- 
formed Dutch  Church,  and  from  precedents  in  the  acts  an<l 
])roceedings  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Churcli  an<l  of  tlie  True 
Refoi-med  Dutch  Clnircli,  it  appears  that  tlie  foi-mation  of  a 
new  congregation  or  consistoiy  or  church  judit  atoi y  in  con- 
iKMtion  with  and  subordinate  to  that  cliurth  is  to  be  made 
with  tlie  consent  and  by  the  authority  of  the  proper  eccle- 
siastical assemblj'.  A  portion  of  the  mendjers  of  the  church, 
nv  converts  professing  its  faith,  cannot  by  tlieir  own  act  and 
without  the  sanction  ])rescribed  by  tlie  constitution,  form  a 
new  consistory,  classis,  or  synod  within  the  plan  of  tlic 
church.     Den  ex  dem.     Day  v  Bolton,  12  X.  .1.  J..  20(;. 

Taxation  of  Parsonage.  The  society  owned  a  parsonage 
which  was  erected  from  contrilnilions  derived  from  various 
sources.  These  contributions  did  not  constitute  an  endow- 
ment or  a  fund  within  the  meaning  of  the  statute  which 
exempts  from  taxation  such  a  IniHl  nv  endow  iiu-nt.  The  ])ar- 
sonage  was,  therefore,  held  to  be  subject  to  taxation.  Stale. 
Fii-st  Reformed  Dnicli  Church  v  Lyon,  :{2  N.  .1.  Law  :UH). 

Theological  Seminary,  Legacy  Sustained.  A  betpiest  in  aid 
of  the  theological  seminai'v  at  New  IJrnnsw  iek.  to  be  a|>|>lie(l 
in  educating  ])ious  and  indigent  young  men  tor  the  gospel 
ministry,  was  sustained  as  valid  by  way  ol  a  <'liaiataii!e  u^e 
to  the  Synod  of  the  Dutch  CImrcli.  Iloinbeck  \  Aniei-jcan 
Bible  Society,  2  Sandf.  Ch.  (X.  V.  i    i:'..".. 

Trust,  When  Deviation  in  Doctrine  not  Objectionable.  See 
Miller  v  (lable,  2  Den.   (X.  V.  i    l!>2.  for  a  disciission  on  the 


r>s(;        Till':  cinil  law  am»  tiii;  cihijcii 

pOWCI"  (»r  .1  I(m;iI  cllllicli  In  lisi-  |iro|M'lly  lor  tlic  ItMcliiii;;  of 
(loclrilM's  (lillVrciil  from  I  hose  held  \i\  the  ;j:cii('I';iI  »lciioiiiiii;i- 
tion.  (Jol)l('  \  .Millci',  H»  I'^ij^c  (Mi.  (  N.  ^'.  i  (IHT  was  reversed. 
Trust,  When  Valid.  Tlic  coiucvance  lo  eei-laiii  individuals, 
of  tliosilcol'  (lie  hiitcli  Clinicli  in  Garden  Street,  in  tlie  city 
of  New  Yorlv,  in  l(i!M,  in  trust  lor  tlie  nse  of  the  inijiisterH, 
elders,  and  deacons  of  such  cliurch  and  their  successors,  and 
to  have  a  house  of  jjuhlic  worshij)  erected  thereon  and  for 
no  other  use  Avhatev<'r,  was  a  valid  conveyance  at  the  com- 
mon law  to  a  charitable  and  ])ious  use;  and  the  court  of 
chancery  has  original  jurisdiction  to  enforce  the  perform- 
ance of  the  trust.  Dutch  Church  in  (lai-den  Street  v  Mott, 
7  Paige  Ch.  (N.  V.)  77;  see  article  on  Reformed  Church  for 
note  on  change  of  name. 


REFORMED  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH 

Division  of  society,  majority's  right,  587. 

Division  of  Society,  Majority's  Right.  This  .society  \v;is 
iticorjiorated  in  KSuU.  Uy  Diie  .sccliou  ol'  Ihc  witicU's  ul 
iiu-<)ri)oi'atioii  corporate  powers  were  vested  in  the  sultscriU 
(MS  and  their  sncccssors.  nieinhcrs  of  the  con}ire_i;a1  ion  \vIh» 
shonkl  adhere  to  an<l  maintain  the  system  of  relij^ions  piiii 
ciples  declared  and  exliibited  by  the  Rel'ormed  IMesbyteiiaii 
Synod  of  North  America,  "ol'  whicli  the  Reverend  Doctors 
\\'ylie  and  Crawford  are  now  olliciating  ministers."  The 
ciinrcli  ])roperty  whicli  was  the  subject  of  controversy  in 
this  action  was  conveyed  to  the  corporation  in  March,  isr»(>, 
for  the  use  of  the  congregation  ami  their  siicces.sors  and 
assigns. 

The  plaintiffs  in  this  action  seceded  from  the  congrega- 
tion in  February,  1870,  and  claim<Ml  the  in-operty  on  the 
ground  that  they  constituted  the  real  I'il'ih  Kcldnned 
Church.  It  was  alleged  that  the  defendant,  constituting 
the  majority,  had  withdrawn  from  the  IJeformed  I'resby 
terian  Church  of  North  America,  and  Irnni  the  juris<liction 
of  the  General   Synod. 

Tn  June,  1S<I8,  the  Keforined  I'resbyterv  (»!'  IMiiladelphia 
sus]>emled  its  relations  to  the  <  icuei  al  Synod,  in  consetiutMice 
of  certain  proceedings  of  the  synod  which  were  disa]>proved 
by  the  ju-esbytery,  but  the  presbytery  expressly  asserte<l  its 
continued  inend)ership  in  llic  Keloriiwd  I'lcsbylciian 
Church.  The  pi-otest  of  the  I'"'irs(  I'resbytery  of  IMiibnIelphi.i 
was  ]>resented  to  the  synod  a(  its  next  meeting  in  May,  ISCi'.i, 
ami  the  syno<l  thereniion  adoplecl  icsolutions  declaring  the 
ollicers  and  members  of  the  presbytery  to  be  withoni  (lie 
jurisdiction  of  the  (Jeneral  Synod,  and   |)lai  ing  scxci-al  con- 

587 


5M.S  Till-:  CI  NIL   LAW   AM»  '11 1 1!  (Ill   KCII 

j;i'i'j^;il  ions,  iiiclinliii;^  llic  I'^iflli  Kdoniicij,  iiiMJcr  the  jiiris- 
(liclioii  <»!"  tlic  S<M(»ii(l  ricsbytciy  of  I'liilii(l('l|>lii;i,  jirovidcMl 
such  ((nijifcjijilion  ;i(lli('i'<'(l  to  tlui  (Jciicral  SvtukI,  and  nj)- 
plicd  for  admission  to  tlic  Second  IM-eslnMcry. 

This  action  of  the  synod  was  held  to  be  without  authority, 
and  the  majority  of  the  local  congregation  were  declare<l 
the  true  Fillli  Keformed  Church,  entitled  to  all  the  rights 
and  i)rivileges  accorded  to  the  society  under  the  rules  of 
the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  and  the  control  and 
management  of  the  property  under  the  original  conveyance 
thereof.  McAuley's  Appeal,  77  I'a.  397.  See  also  Kerr's 
Appeal,  89  I'a.  97. 


RELIGION 

Defined,  589. 

Children,  education,  590. 

Chuich  and  state,  590. 

Constitution  of  the  United  States,  591. 

Duty  of  state,  592. 

English  toleration  acts,  592. 

Freedom,  592. 

Girard  College  case,  59;i. 

Government  not  to  teach,  595. 

Importance  to  society,  595. 

Legislative  regulation,  595. 

Ohio,  595. 

Rational  piety,  59G. 

Restraining  interference,  596. 

Defined.  The  teiiii  "religion"  has  reference  to  one's  views 
of  his  relations  to  his  Creator,  and  to  the  obligations  tlicy 
ini]»ose  of  reverence  for  his  being  ami  <liaratler,  and  of  obe- 
dience to  liis  will.  It  is  often  confonnded  with  the  cnltns  or 
form  of  worship  of  a  ]»articnlar  sect,  bnt  is  disliiignisliabh' 
from  the  latter.  With  man's  relations  to  his  Maker  aii<l 
the  obligations  he  nuiy  think  they  imjiose,  and  the  manner 
in  which  an  expression  shall  be  made  by  him  of  liis  belief 
on  those  snbjects,  no  intei'ference  can  bi'  pei-mitted,  ]»fo 
vi<led  always  the  laws  of  soci<'ty,  designed  to  .secnre  its 
peace  and  prosperity,  and  the  mor;ils  of  its  people,  are  not 
interfered  with.     Davis  v  IJeason,  VV.i  U.  S.  'MVA. 

In  all  Christian  connti-ies  the  word  "religicm"  is  oidi 
narily  understood  to  mean  some  system  of  faith  and  practice 
resting  on  the  idea  of  the  existence  of  one  (Jod.  the  Creator 
and  Knler,  to  whom  his  creatiires  owe  obedience  and  Iov»'. 
Religion  comprehends  all  systems  of  beli(  I  in  the  existence 
of  beings  snperior  to  and  ca]»able  of  exei-cising  an  inllnence 
for  good  or  evil  upon  the  Iinman  race,  and  all  fornts  of  wor- 

589 


niM)        Tin:  ('i\iL  LAW  AM)  'I'm:  ciirKcii 

ship  (»r  service  iiiteinled  |(»  inlliieiice  of  {^ivc  lioiioi-  to  such 
siiperioi-  |Kt\vers.  II  is  in  this  sense  ol'  the  word  that  we 
speak  of  the  i'elij;ion  of  the  North  American  Indian,  the  reli- 
gion of  the  fire  worshipers,  or  the  ancient  Ej^ptians.  A 
IxMpiest  in  aid  of  any  snch  system  would,  therefore,  he  a 
hecpiest  for  a  religious  use  within  the  meaning  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania act  of  1855.    Knight's  Estate,  159  I'a.  500. 

Religion  is  that  sense  of  Deity,  that  re\erence  for  the 
Creator,  which  is  im])lanted  in  the  minds  of  rational  beings. 
It  is  seated  in  the  heart  and  is  conversant  with  the  inward 
princijdes  and  temper  of  the  mind.  It  must  be  the  result  of 
personal  conviction.  It  is  a  concern  between  every  man 
and  his  Maker.  Public  instruction  in  religion  and  morality, 
within  the  meaning  of  our  constitution  and  laws,  is  to 
every  purpose  a  civil  and  not  a  spiritual  institution.  Mu/zy 
v  Wilkins,  Snnth's  N.  H.  Rep.  1. 

Children,  Education.  In  Re  Jacquet,  40  Misc.  (N.  Y.  i  575. 
82  N.  Y.  S.  i)8(),  it  was  held  that  where  a  father  and  mother 
are  Catholics  their  children,  when  committed  to  the  care  of 
a  guardian,  must  be  brought  uj)  as  Catholics. 

Church  and  State.  At  the  time  of  the  emigration  of  the 
Pilgrims,  not  only  in  the  country  whence  they  came  but  iu 
all  Christendom,  religion  was  an  engine  of  state,  and  the 
support  and  protection  of  the  latter  was  deemed  indispens- 
able to  the  preservation  and  maintenance  of  the  former. 
This  alliance  had  existed  for  ages,  and  the  light  of  inspira- 
tion alone  could  have  taught  them  at  once  that  its  dissolu- 
tion, so  far  from  endangering  or  destroying  the  Christian 
religion,  would  i)romote  its  purity  and  increase  and  per- 
petuate its  beneficial  influence.  In  the  early  periods  of 
our  history  we  find  that  the  government  maintained  a  super- 
intendence over  the  ecclesiastical  affairs  of  the  common- 
wealth, and  instances  are  numerous  in  which  the  governor 
and  magistrates  were  appealed  to  and  lent  their  aid  in  the 
settlement  of  religious  controversies.  The  leading  prin- 
ciple in  the  religious  system  of  the  colony  is  the  compulsory 
support  of  public  worship  and  the  liability'  of  every  inhab- 


KELIGION  5!H 

itaut  to  coutribiile  toward  its  iiiaiiitenaiice.  This  principle' 
runs  through  all  the  legislation  upon  the  subject,  both 
under  the  colonial  and  i)rovincial  governments,  it  was 
incorporated  into  our  constitution  and  is  now  an  operative 
provision  of  it.  To  the  practical  operation  of  this  principle 
man}-  exceptions  have  been  made,  but  it  never  has  been 
abandoned.  It  is  now  a  prominent  feature  of  our  parochial 
laws. 

The  original  mode  of  siijtporting  public  worsliij)  was  by 
the  several  towns;  and  towns  were  established  lirst  along 
with  a  view  of  ])arochial  duties  as  to  the  management  of 
municipal  atfairs.  lOach  town  was  required  to  be  provided 
with  a  minister,  and  every  inhabitant  was  liable  to  be 
taxed  for  his  supi)ort.  And  not  only  in  the  settlement 
of  ministers  but  in  all  elections  and  other  civil  matters  the 
right  of  snttrage  was  confined  to  church  mend)ers  in  full 
communion.  Each  town  was  required  to  provide  houses 
of  public  worship,  and  individuals  were  prohibited  from 
erecting  such  houses  without  the  consent  of  the  town.  For 
about  a  century  all  the  inhabitants  were  required  to  pay 
ministerial  taxes,  ami  in  the  early  days  every  inhabilatit 
was  required  to  attend  public  worship  on  Sundays,  and  on 
fast  and  thaidvsgiving  days,  and  was  subject  to  a  j)enalty 
for  neglect.    Oakcs  v  llill,  10  Tirk.  (Mass.  i  ;!.'«. 

Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  first  amendment  to 
the  constitution,  in  declaring  that  Congress  shall  make  no 
law  resjtecting  the  establishineni  of  icliuioii.  (H  foibid- 
ding  the  free  exercise  thereof,  was  inleiulcd  to  allow  every 
one  un<ler  the  jurisdiction  of  the  TnitcMl  St.ites  to  entertain 
such  notions  respecting  his  relations  to  his  Maker  and  the 
duties  they  imi)ose  as  may  be  aj)proved  by  his  judgment  and 
conscience,  and  to  exhibit  his  sentiments  in  such  form  of 
worship  as  he  nuiy  think  i)roper,  not  injurious  to  the  e(pnil 
rights  of  others,  ami  to  ]>rohibit  legislation  for  the  supj>ort 
of  any  religious  teiuMs  or  the  modes  of  worship  of  any  sect. 
The  o]tpi'essive  measures  adopted  and  the  cruelties  ;ind 
juinishnients    inllicte(l    by    the   governments   of    lairttpe    for 


r>!n'        THE  ri\ii.  LAW  AM)  Tin:  ("iiiitciT 

many  a^cs  (o  coiiqx'l  parlies  to  coiilonn  in  llicii-  rcli^iions 
belief  and  modes  of  worHliip  to  the  viewH  of  I  lie  most  nunicr- 
ons  sod,  and  the  folly  of  atlcmptin;;  in  that  way  to  control 
Ihe  mental  operations  of  the  persons  and  enforce  an  outward 
c(»nformily  to  a  jirescribed  standai'd,  led  to  the  a<loption  of 
the  amendment  in  ((nest ion.    Davis  v  Jieason,  I."'.''  U.  S.  AX). 

Duty  of  State.  The  dnty  of  the  state  with  resjiect  to  reli- 
gion— its  wlwde  dnty — is  to  ])rotect  every  religions  deii<»m 
illation  in  the  ]»eaceal)le  enjoyment  of  its  own  mode  of  ]»iil)lie 
worshi}).  This  duly  is  not  due  alone  to  the  ditlerent  denom- 
inations of  the  ('hristian  religion,  Init  is  due  to  every  reli- 
gions body,  organization,  or  society  whose  members  are 
accnstomed  to  come  together  for  the  purpose  of  worship- 
ing the  Sujjrenie  Being.    State  v  Scheve,  65  Neb.  853. 

English  Toleration  Acts.  "As  a  consequence  of  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopalian  religion  being  the  state  church  in  the 
reigns  of  Elizabeth  and  George  I,  and  also  of  the  then  exist- 
ing laws  in  relation  to  the  exercise  of  other  religions,  it  is 
probable  that  the  only  trusts,  which  by  reason  of  their  ob- 
ject being  the  advancement  of  religion  would  have  been 
recognized  as  charitable  at  the  time  of  the  statutes  in  ques- 
tion, were  trusts  for  the  advancement  of  that  particular 
religion.  Nevertheless,  it  is  clear  that  the  religious  services, 
the  public  celebration  of  which  involved  the  public  benefit 
contemplated  by  later  statutes,  must  now  be  taken  to  in- 
clude the  religious  services  of,  at  least,  any  denomination  of 
(Christians,  because  when  from  time  to  time  the  passing  of 
the  various  toleration  acts  rendered  lawful  the  exerci.se  of 
religions  other  than  that  of  the  Established  Church,  trusts 
for  the  advancement  of  the  Roman  Catholic  religion,  of  the 
religion  of  Trotestant  dissenters,  and  even  of  that  of  the 
Jews  were  held  charitable  within  the  meaning  of  the  Sta- 
tute."   Attorney  (Jeneral  v  Hall.  2  Irish  Re.  21)1.  '^01  (1806). 

Freedom.  That  .society,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  that 
the  civil  magistrate  should  ever  undertake  to  prescribe  to 
men  what  they  shall  believe  and  what  they  shall  not  believe 
is  a  thing  so  ab.surd  that  we  should  hardly  believe  it  upon 


RELIGION  5»:5 

less  evidence  than  that  of  experience.  Oi)inions  ai-e  iKtt  tlir 
proper  objects  of  iuinian  authority.  The  niiiul  c»f  in;iii  was 
not  intended  l)y  its  wise  Creator  to  be  snbjecled  to  the  con- 
trol of  finite  limited  beings  like  itself.  Free(h)m  of  thought 
is  the  prerogative  of  human  kind,  a  quality  inherent  in  tlie 
very  nature  of  a  tliinking  being,  a  jtrivilege  >\liich  oiiglit 
never  to  be  denied.  2so  human  government  has  a  riglit  to 
set  up  a  standard  of  belief,  because  it  is  itself  fallible.  It 
has  not  jdeased  (Jod  lo  eiiligliten  l»y  his  grace  any  govern- 
ment witli  the  gift  of  understanding  the  Scrii»lur«\s.  I'lii- 
formity  of  faitli  is  not  practicable,  and  if  it  were,  is  not 
desirabh'.     ]Mu/.zy  v  ^^'ilkills,  Smith's  N.  II.  K''|».  I. 

Girard  College  Case.  Stephen  CJirard  by  a  will  hearing  date 
Decend)er  2."),  1830,  among  other  things,  gave  a  large  anionnt 
of  ])ro])erty  to  the  city  of  IMiiladelpliia  for  tlie  purjiosc  of 
establishing  and  maintaining  therein  a  school  for  tlie  in- 
struction of  poor  white  male  orphan  children  and  directing 
the  erection  and  ecjuijiment  of  buildings  necessai-y  for  that 
purpose.  The  clause  relating  to  this  institution  contained 
the  following  restriction:  "I  enjoin  and  require  tiiat  no 
ecclesiastic,  missionary,  or  minister  of  any  sect  ^^'hatsoever, 
shall  ever  hold  or  exercise  any  station  or  dnty  whatcNcr  in 
the  said  college;  nor  shall  any  such  person  ever  hi'  admitted 
for  any  ])urpose,  or  as  a  visitor,  within  the  premises  ajtpro- 
priated  to  the  purposes  of  the  said  college,  in  making  this 
restriction  I  do  not  mean  to  cast  any  reflection  ni)on  any  sect 
or  person  whatsoever;  but,  as  thei-e  is  such  a  nmltitnde  of 
sects,  and  such  a  diversity  of  opinion  amongst  them,  1  desire 
to  keep  the  tender  minds  of  the  or])hans  w  ho  are  to  derive 
advantage  from  tliis  be(inest  fi'ee  from  the  excitement  w  Iiieli 
clashing  doctrines  and  sectarian  controversy  ai'e  so  ajit  to 
produce;  my  desire  is  that  all  the  instrnctors  and  teachers 
in  the  college  shall  take  ]>ains  to  instill  into  the  niin<ls  of 
the  scholars  the  ]»nrest  i)rincii)les  of  morality,  so  that,  on 
their  entrance  into  active  life,  they  may,  fi-oni  inclination 
and  habit,  evince  benevolence  toward  theii'  fellow  creattires 
and  a  love  of  truth,  sobriety,  and  indnsliy.  adojiling  at  the 


r>i)4       Tirr:  cniL  law  and  tin:  ciifKrii 

s;iiii('  liiiH'  such  i"<'li;^i()iis  tciicis  ;is  llicir  iiuil  iiicd  rciisoii  may 
oiijible  theni  to  prefer." 

Certain  lieirs  of  the  testator  Ix'jjaTi  f)rocee(lingK  in  (he 
Unite<l  Stales  ('ircuit  Court  to  liav(*  llu;  will  declared  void 
as  to  the  residuaiy  estate,  partly  on  the  ground  of  an  ullei^ed 
lack  of  capacity  of  the  city  to  take  the  projierty  and  ])artly 
because  the  alle<i;ed  trust  was  voi<l  for  uncertainty.  The 
complainants  objected  among  other  things  that  the  founda- 
tion of  tlie  college  ui)on  the  principles  and  exclusions  pic 
scribed  by  the  testator  in  the  foregoing  e.xtract  from  his 
will  was  derogatorj'  and  hostile  to  the  Christian  religion, 
and  so  was  void,  as  being  against  the  common  law  and 
jtublic  policy  of  rennsylvania ;  and  this  for  two  reasons: 
tirst,  because  of  the  exclusion  of  all  ecclesiastics,  missiona- 
ries, and  ministers  of  any  sect  from  holding  or  exercising 
any  station  or  duty  in  the  college,  or  even  visiting  the  same; 
and,  secondly,  because  it  limited  the  instruction  to  be  given 
to  the  scholars  to  i)ure  morality,  and  general  benevolence, 
and  a  love  of  truth,  sobriety,  and  industry,  thereby  exclud- 
ing, by  implication,  all  instruction  in  the  Christian  religion. 
Judge  Story,  speaking  for  the  Supreme  Court  in  Vidal  v 
Girard's  Executors,  2  How.  (U.  S. )  127,  said  that  Mr.  Girard 
did  not  say  that  Christianity  should  not  be  taught  in  the 
college.  But  that  no  ecclesiastic  of  any  sect  should  hold  or 
exercise  any  station  or  d\ity  in  the  college.  Judge  Story 
suggested  that  laymen  might  instruct  in  the  general  prin- 
ciples of  Christianity,  as  well  as  ecclesiastics,  and  that  there 
was  no  restriction  as  to  the  religious  opinions  of  the  instruc- 
tors and  oflScers.  The  Judge  further  suggested  that  **tlie 
Bible,  especially  the  New  Testament,  without  note  or  com- 
ment might  be  read  and  taught  as  a  divine  revelation  in  the 
college,  its  general  precepts  expounded,  its  evidences  ex- 
plained, and  its  glorious  principles  of  morality  inculcate*!." 
The  court  thought  that  Mr.  Girard  intended  to  exchnle  sec- 
tarians and  sectarianism  from  the  college,  leaving  the  in- 
structors and  officers  free  to  teach  the  purest  morality,  the 
love   of  truth,   sobriety,   and   industry   by   all   apitropriate 


KELKJION  595 

means;  and,  of  course,  includinjj  the  best,  the  sniest,  and 
the  most  impressive.  It  was  held  that  there  was  nothing  in 
the  foregoing  restriction  inconsistent  with  the  Thristian 
religion.    The  will  was  sustained. 

Government  Not  to  Teach.  The  suggestion  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  government  to  teach  religion  has  no  basis  whatever 
in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  this  State  (  Xebi-aska  )  nor  in 
the  history  of  our  people.  The  teaching  of  religion  would 
mean  teaching  the  system  of  faith  and  woi-shij)  of  one  or 
more  of  the  religious  sects;  it  would  mean  sectarianism  in 
the  public  schools.    State  v  Scheve,  65  Neb.  853. 

Importance  to  Society.  Keligion  is  of  the  utmost  import- 
ance to  every  coniniunity.  The  history  of  the  i)ast  fur- 
nishes abundant  evidence  of  the  truth  of  this  jiroposition. 
It  is  the  basis  of  civilization.  ^Vere  it  not,  we  should  be  iT\ 
a  state  of  moral  daikness  and  degradation,  such  as  usually 
attend  the  most  barbarous  and  savage  states.  It  is  to  the 
influence  of  it  that  Ave  stand  indebted  for  all  that  social 
order  and  happiness  which  jtrevails  among  us.  It  is  by  the 
force  of  religion  more  than  by  that  of  oui-  munici])al  I'cgula- 
tions,  or  our  boasted  sense  of  honor,  that  we  are  k('|)t  within 
the  line  of  moral  rectitude,  and  constrained  to  administer 
to  the  welfare  and  comfort  of  each  other.  In  short,  we  owe 
to  it  all  that  we  enjoy,  eithei-  of  civil  or  religious  liberty. 
Conimonwealth  v  I)u])uy,  I'riglitly  N.  \*.  {  Pa.  I  41. 

Legislative  Regulation.  Altliongli  it  may  be  Inie  that  "r«'li- 
gion  can  be  directed  otdy  by  reason  and  conviction,  not  by 
force  or  violence,''  and  that  "all  men  are  ecpially  entitliMl  to 
the  fi-eci  exercise  of  religion  accttrding  to  llie  dictates  of  con- 
science," as  tlie  bill  of  i-iglils  of  N'irginia  dcclai-cs,  y<'t  it  is 
<liflticult  to  perceive  how  it  follows  as  a  conse(|neiice  that  the 
Legislature  may  not  enact  laws  more  elVect  nally  lomnhlrall 
sects  to  accomplish  the  gi-eat  objects  of  religion  by  giving 
them  corporate  rights  for  the  nianagcment  of  Iheii-  propei-ty, 
and  the  regulation  of  their  tenipor;il  ;is  well  as  spirit  nal  con- 
cerns.    Terrett  v  Taylor,  1)  ('ranch    (T.  S.  i    i:'.. 

Ohio.     Keliirion  bv  the  consliliilion  is  declared  |o  lie  t'ssen- 


him;        tin:  cinil  law  .wh  tiii:  cm  imii 

tial  to  |;«)o(l  ^(tvciiiiiiciit.  I^cliuioii,  t  liciclort',  is  regarded 
by  the  conHtitutioii  as  good.  It  simply  gives  the  state  no 
l><)\ver  to  declare  which  religion  or  religious  sect  is  better 
or  best.  ''No  prelerericc;  shall  b<^  given  by  law  to  any  reli- 
gious society"  is  the  language  of  the  constitution.  This 
makes  the  state  im|)arlial  and  neutral  betv/een  ever}'  creed. 
faith,  and  sect  existing  among  its  jteojile  for  the  time  being. 
Protestants  of  every  denomination,  Catholics  ami  Jews, 
have  thus  had  their  respective  creeds  made  e<iual  before  the 
law,  and  all  declared  to  be  good,  and  no  preference  can  be 
given  by  law  to  either.  Humphreys  v  Little  Sisters  of  the 
Poor,  7  Ohio  Dec.  194. 

Rational  Piety.  The  obligation  to  support  rational  piety 
is  common  to  all  nations,  because  it  is  the  firmest  support 
of  lawful  authority,  and  the  highest  pledge  of  the  people's 
safety.  Beam  v  First  Methodist  l']i)iscopal  Church,  Lan- 
caster, Pa.,  3  Pa.  L.  J.  Kep.  343. 

Restraining  Interference.  "Individual  conscience  may  not 
be  enforced,  but  men  of  every  opinion  and  creed  may  be 
restrained  from  acts  which  interfere  with  Christian  wor- 
ship, and  which  tend  to  revile  religion  and  bring  it  into  con- 
tempt."   Lindeumuller  v  I'eople,  33  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  548. 


RELIGIOUS  BELIEF 

No  excuse  for  neglecting  parental  duty,  597. 

No  Excuse  for  Neglecting  Parental  Duty.  State  v  Cheuo- 
weth,  l(i:i  Iiid.  !M,  contains  an  interostiii<;  review  of  En<;lisli 
an*!  Ainevican  cases  bearing  on  the  ellVcl  of  i'cli<^i()ns  bclid' 
as  a  defense  in  a  jjiosccution  for  neglecting;;  parental  <luty  by 
refusing  to  provide  medical  aid  to  children. 


597 


RETJCIIOUS  CORPORATIONS 

AnicrnliriK  cliarkT,  '>'.•'.). 

Assiniimciit  for  rrcdilors,  r>!)l). 

HimkiiiK.  •'>'■»'.». 

Husiiu«.s.s  block,  ')W. 

C'upacity  to  take  pro|)«rty,  how  dotorinincHl,  600. 

ChanKing  form  of  govcrnriionl,  600. 

Charter,  6(H). 

Consolidation,  (iOO. 

Constitution  and  by-laws  make  contract,  601. 

Contract,  excursion,  602 

Corporate  acts,  602. 

Corporator's  right,  how  acquired  or  lost,  602. 

Debts,  members  not  personally  liable,  603. 

Debt,  ratification,  W.]. 

Debt,  treasurer's  loan,  603. 

Debts,  reimbursement,  604. 

De  facto,  property  rights,  ()04. 

De  facto,  604. 

Denominational  character,  ♦304. 

Dissolution,  effect,  605 

Dissolution,  State  law  superior  to  church  law,  605. 

Diversion  of  trust,  605. 

Government,  t.)05. 

Incorporation,  606. 

Incorporation,  collateral  inquiry,  606. 

Incorporation,  validity,  how  questioned,  606. 

Liability  for  debt,  607. 

Liability  for  injuries  caused  by  negligence  of  employee,  607. 

Liability  for  injuries  to  emploj'ee,  60S. 

Majority,  when  action  binding  on  minority,  608. 

Majority's  right,  6()S. 

Members,  ()0S. 

Member  expelled,  no  claim  for  damages,  609. 

Member's  expulsion,  605). 

Member's  liability,  609. 

Members,  when  may  not  be  excluded,  609. 

Michigan  rule,  610. 

Minors  as  members,  610. 

598 


KELlGlOUiS  COlil'UKATlO^iS  509 

New  organization,  effect,  610. 

New  York  rule,  010. 

Object  and  jnui)o.«e,  610. 

Organization,  notice,  610. 

Pew-owners,  611. 

Presumption,  611. 

Promissory  note,  611. 

Property,  limitation,  611. 

Religious  connection,  612. 

Removal  to  new  house,  612. 

Roman  Catholic,  charter,  612. 

Status,  613. 

Status,  as  compared  with  English  parson,  613. 

Taxation,  613. 

Three  elements,  613. 

Trustee,  614. 

Trustees,  powers,  614. 

Trustees,  majority  must  meet  and  act,  615. 

Unauthorized  sale  of  property,  615. 

Who  constitute,  615. 

Young  Men's  Christian  Association,  616. 

Young  Women's  Christian  Association,  616. 

Amending  Charter.  Tlu;  charter  of  a  religious  corpora- 
tion cannot  be  amended  witliout  notice  of  an  intention  to 
submit  the  proposed  amendment  at  a  specified  meeting.  Re 
African  Methodist  F.piscopal  Union  Church,  28  I'a.  JSup.  Ct. 

Assignment  for  Creditors.  De  Kuyter  v  St.  Peters  Churcli, 
3  N.  V.  Ke  '2'AS  sustained  an  assignment  by  the  society,  of  its 
property  to  trustees  for  the  benefit  of  creditors.  The  chan- 
cellor had  approved  the  assignment.  It  was  also  held  that  a 
religious  corporation  miglil  a(  common  law  assign  its  pro])- 
erty  in  trust  for  the  i)ayment  of  its  debts  unless  restrained 
by  its  clmrter,  or  by  statute. 

Banking.  A  society  organized  for  religious  puri)Oses 
under  the  Ohio  statute  could  not  lawfully  establish  a  sav- 
ings bank  and  engage  in  the  general  business  of  banking. 
Sucli  business  \v;is  not  authorized  by  its  charter.  Uuber  v 
(xerman  CoMgregation,  10  Ohio  St.  .'>71. 

Business   Block.      In    Fii-st   Methodist    lOpiscop.il    Cbuitl,, 


(iiM)        I'lii;  (INI  I.  LAW  AM>  'iiii:  <  III  i;<'ii 

('lii<"i;io  V  IMxoii,  ITS  111.  J<;0,  it  was  held  llial  a  corjxnat  i(i;i 
(Tcafcd  for  llic  puiposcs  of  ivlipous  wor.sliii),  and  author 
izcd  to  tcccivc  and  hold  land  and  (ixM-t  buildings  for  such 
l»ni|)<»sr  and  no  oiImt,  has  powci-  to  erect  only  such  build- 
in;rs  as  aic  directly  anil  distindly  a|»|)roi»riate  to  the  ad- 
vaiurnionl  of  the  cause  of  relij;i«)n,  and  m-cessary  to  the  com- 
fort and  convenience  of  the  ((.nj^rej^jatlon  when  euga}i;e<l 
n|M>n  reli^dous  duties,  and  that  trustees  had  no  ])Ower  to 
erect  an  ollice  huildinji  on  the  lot. 

Capacity  to  Take  Property,  How  Determined.  The  ques- 
tion whether  a  reli«;ious  corporation  has  capacity  to  take 
projierty  in  e.xcess  of  the  amount  i)rescribed  by  its  charter 
can  be  raised  only  by  the  State  in  a  direct  j)roceeding  for 
that  pur[K>se.  The  question  cannot  be  raised  collaterally  at 
the  instance  of  a  i)rivate  individual  who  may  be  interested 
ill  the  pi-o]»ei-ly.  nor  in  a  proceeding  for  the  construction  of 
a  will.  Hanson  v  Little  Sisters  of  the  Poor,  Baltimore  and 
St.  Mary's  Church,  Hampden,  7M  Md.  4o4. 

Changing  Form  of  Government.  The  right  of  a  majority  of 
the  corporators  of  a  religious  society  to  change  their  form 
(»f  cliurch  uovernmeut,  and  [>ass  from  a  Congregational 
church  to  an  organization  in  connection  with  the  Presby- 
terian body,  is  unquestionable.  Bellport  Parish  v  Tooker, 
LMt  P.arb.   (N.  Y.  I  2:>Vk 

Charter.  Although  a  church  does  not  enjoy  the  attributes 
of  a  corporation,  yet  having  a  well-established  identity,  it 
was  quite  within  the  scope  of  legislative  power  to  constitute 
certain  of  its  officers,  also  equally  well  known,  by  the  name 
of  their  office,  a  cor])oration,  and  to  endow  them  with  power 
to  take  estates,  i-eal  and  ])ersonal,  in  succession;  and  also 
with  a  capacity  to  sue  and  ilefend  all  actions  touching  the 
same.     .Vinlerson  v  Urock,  .*!  Me.  24.'*.. 

Consolidation.  A  religious  society  cannot  be  incorporated 
for  the  sole  i»urpo.se  of  consolidating  it  with  another,  with 
the  ultimate  design  of  acquiring  the  property  of  such  other 
and  ap](lying  it  to  the  maintenance  of  a  church  with  a  dif 
lerent   polity  and  where  a  somewhat  dilferent  faith  exists. 


IMll.Kilors  COKI'OKATIONS  GOl 

Tlie  .slatuU's  i»r(t\  i(liii<;  lor  IIk'  tuiisolidat ion  ul'  leligiou.s 
coii)oi'ations  were  desij>ijed  to  enable  existing  religious  cor- 
j)orations,  organized  in  good  lailli  for  the  a«lvanceinent  of 
religious  interests,  and  for  a  time  carried  on  for  sneli  pur- 
pose, to  cousolidate  when  il  becomes  a|>]»ai('iil  lliat  such 
interests  can  be  bellei-  adxanced  by  the  union  of  the  corpo- 
rations. When  a  nuijority  of  trustees  of  one  corj)orati<»n  are 
also  the  trustees  of  another  corporation,  boards  of  trustees 
so  constituted  cannot  enter  into  a  valid  contract  for  the 
consolidation  of  the  corporations,  flatter  of  M.  E.  Society 
V  Perry,  51  Hun  (N.  Y.)  104. 

Two  Hebrew  congregations  agreed  to  consolidate,  one  of 
them  to  receive  all  Ihe  i)roi)erty  of  the  other,  and  the  trans- 
ferring congregations  were  to  enjoy  all  the  privileges  and 
be  subject  to  all  the  duties  of  the  congregation  to  which  the 
transfer  was  nuide  and  with  which  the  consolidation  was  to 
be  effected.  By  the  agreement  either  congregation  could, 
within  a  year,  withdraw  from  the  consolidation  on  giving 
notice  of  its  intention  so  to  do.  It  was  held  that  the  con- 
solidation agreement  did  not  comply  with  the  Religious 
Corporations  Law,  sec.  12,  nor  with  tlie  Membership  Cor- 
porations Law,  sec.  7,  and  that,  therefore,  the  attemjtt  to  con- 
solidate was  beyond  the  powers  of  the  congregations  and 
that  a  single  dissenting  mend)er  of  either  corporation  could 
maintain  an  action  to  set  aside  the  agreement.  Davis  v 
Cong.  Beth  Tei>hila  Israel,  40  A.  I).  (N.  Y.)  424. 

Where  two  religious  corjmrations  have  consolidated  with- 
out attem]>ting  to  follow  the  i)rovisions  of  the  statute  pro- 
viding therefor,  either  party  to  such  action  may  sue  to  set 
aside  the  consolidation  as  ultra  vires  without  any  ])rior 
request  so  to  do  from  its  nuMnbers.  Chevra  ^Medrash  Auschei 
Makaver  v  Makower  Chevi-a  Aiuchi  robuul.  (i(i  X.  V.  Sujtp. 
355. 

Constitution  and  By-Laws  Make  Contract.  AVhere  a  nund)er 
of  persons  associate  to  form  a  religious  congregation,  to 
acquire  ])rop(Mty  U*v  its  use.  and  inc(»i  poiate  foi"  the  more 
convenient  holding  and  control  of  the  pn>perty,  the  consti- 


(;(►!•  Tin:  civil.  LAW  AND  THK  CBVUCn 

tutioii  or  Itod.v  <»l  nilfs  wliicli  tlicy  ;Hl«»|it  l«>  juest  riltf  who 
shall  be  iiioiiibers  of  llic  coi-ixiiiitioii.  ;iii<l  cntithMl  to  ;i  share 
ill  the  control  ol"  it,  is  tiic  coiifracl  hy  wliich  llicv  arc  l)oim'l. 
Tnistet's,  I'^asl  Xoi-way  Lake  Noiwejiiaii  lOvaiij^clical  Lu- 
theran Clnirili  ^:  oliicis  \    llalvorson,  42  Minn.  .")():;. 

Contract,  Excursion.  l''or  Ihc  piiipose  ol"  raisinj;  money  to 
apply  on  a  (■liiiich  debt  the  society  chartered  a  steamer  for 
an  exenrsion.  It  was  held  that  the  church  couM  not  enpjge 
ill  a  <j;eneral  business  enterjirise,  but  that  it  was  limited  to 
the  work  of  preaching-,  teaching;,  ministering  to  spiritual 
edification,  and  promoting  works  of  mercy  and  benevolence. 
A  steamboat  com|»any  refused  to  perform  the  contract,  and 
there  was  no  excursion,  and  the  church  was  compelled  to 
refund  money  to  the  ticket  holders.  In  an  action  by  the 
church  against  the  company  for  damages,  it  was  held  that 
the  contract  was  illegal,  and  beyond  the  power  of  the  reli- 
gious society,  and  that  the  only  amount  recoverable  of  the 
steandioat  company  was  the  amount  paid  as  hire  for  the 
ves.sel  with  interest.  The  church  could  not  recover  damages 
for  losses  by  reason  of  the  failure  of  the  excursion.  Harri- 
man  v  First  Bryan  Baptist  rhurch,  G'A  Oa.  18(;. 

Corporate  Acts.  Whei-e  the  exercise  of  corporate  acts  is 
vested  in  a  select  body,  an  act  done  by  the  persons  coin- 
])osing  that  body,  in  a  meeting  of  all  the  corporators,  is  not 
a  valid  corporate  act.  Landers  v  Frank  St.  Church,  Koch- 
ester,  97  N.  Y.  11!»,  also  114  N.  Y.  G2G. 

Corporator's  Right,  How  Acquired  or  Lost.  A  right  as  .i 
corporator  in  a  religiou.s  society  is  obtained  by  stated  at- 
tendance on  divine  worship  therein,  and  contributing  to  its 
support  by  renting  a  jiew  or  by  some  other  mode  usual  in 
the  congregation. 

Such  a  right  cannot  be  derived  by  descent  from  the  found- 
ers of  the  society,  or  from  the  former  contributors  to,  or 
worshipers  in,  the  same. 

The  association  between  a  religious  imorporation  and  its 
(•(U'porators  is  voluntary  on  the  part  of  the  latter,  and  is 
dissolved  bv  their  withdra\\ing  from  attendance  on  its  wor- 


RELIGIOUS  COKl'OKATiONS  fiOX 

.ship,  omitting  to  contribute  to  its  support,  and  uniting  iu 
the  establishment  of  another  like  incorporation.  Cara- 
mej'er  v  United  (lerman  Lutheran  (Miurclies,  '2  Sandf.  Ch. 
(N.  Y.)  20S. 

Debts,  Members  Not  Personally  Liable.  A  member  of  an 
incorporated  (Inncli  is  under  no  legal  obligation  to  pay  its 
debts,  and  his  only  moral  obligation  is  to  contribute  of  his 
means  and  of  his  influence  to  the  extent  of  his  ability  to  meet 
the  ju.st  demands  u])on  that  organization  so  long  as  he  is  a 
mend)er  of  it.  "He  wlio  gives  credit  to  a  cliurcb  organiza- 
tion knows  that  tlie  only  source  to  which  he  is  entitled  to 
look  for  payment  is  the  })roj)erty  or  assets  of  which  the  cor- 
poration is  owner,  and  to  the  voluntary  olferings  or  gifts  of 
the  members  and  friends  who  m;iy  be  moved  or  persuaded 
to  contribute  to  tliat  pui'i»ose."  Allen  v  Xorlli  Des  ^loines 
Methodist  ICj)iscopal  riiurcli,  127  la.  IMl. 

It  was  held  in  Richardson  v  Butterfield,  GO  Mass.  11)1,  that 
the  mend»ers  were  not  individujilly  liable  on  a  judgment  and 
execution  ;igainst  the  cor])oration. 

Debt,  Ratification.  Several  i>ersons  interested  in  the  erec- 
tion of  a  church  edilice  joined  in  a  promissory  note  to  .secure 
a  loan  of  an  amount  sutlicient  to  meet  the  deliciency.  The 
note  was  discounted  and  the  ]>roceeds  used  by  the  treasurer 
of  the  chui-ch.  Subsctiuently  subscriptions  were  received 
and  contributions  m;ide  in  other  ways  for  a  part  of  this 
indebtedness.  It  was  held  that  by  raising  .subscriptions 
and  soliciting  contributions  the  indebtedness  was  ratified, 
and  the  church  b(M-;inie  liable  for  the  jiaymcnt  of  any  balance 
reniiiiiiing  un])aid.  The  note  given  lor  the  original  loiin  was 
for  the  benefit  of  the  society,  and  the  makers  of  the  note  had 
no  i)ersoiial  interest  therein.  Trustees  of  Christian  Church 
V  Cox,  7S  III.  Apj).  219. 

Debt,  Treasurer's  Loan.  In  Wilson  v  Tabernacle  Baj^t. 
Church,  2S  Misc.  (  X.  V.)  2(;S,  the  corporation  was  held  liable 
in  an  action  against  it  to  recovei'  money  Itorrowed  by  its 
treasurer,  without  the  knowledge  of  llie  li-nstees,  biit  which 
money  was  n.sed  for  the  benefit  of  the  coi-poration. 


(KM  Tin;  ("I\ll.   LAW   AM)  Till:  (III   K("ll 

Debts,  Reimbursement.  In  ;iii  ii(li<»ii  l»y  tlic  <'Iiiit«li  to  coni- 
l»t'I  (lie  conveyance  to  II  of  ;i  lot  <»!"  l:iinl  on  wliidi  ;i  house 
ol"  wol'sliip  liinl  been  creeled,  iind  uliicli  eerl;iiri  jtersons  Iwid 
;t,nree(l  to  convey  to  llie  clnifcli  when  ineoipoiMtecl,  it  wan 
held  lli:it  althon^h  the  society  was  nnincoip(»i-ated  at  the 
lime  of  niakinj;  the  a<jreenM'n(  t(»  convey,  its  snl)se(|nent  in- 
corpoiation  (Mititled  if  to  a  de<'d.  hnf  llie  vendoi-  haviiij^ 
t'\|ieiided  a  lai^e  snin  of  money  in  the  erection  of  fhe  church 
in  addition  to  his  sui>scrijitioii,  was  held  enfitle»l  to  he  reini- 
hursed  hefore  makin«!;  tiie  conveyance,  f'anajoharie  and 
Palatine  Clinrch  v  Leiber,  2  Taige  (Mi.  (  N.  Y. )   4:}. 

De  Facto,  Property  Rights.  A  religions  association,  al- 
though by  reason  of  irregularities  in  complying  with  the 
l>rovisions  of  the  Massachusetts  General  Statutes,  chap.  32, 
if  has  failed  to  ln'conie  a  corporation,  is  nevertheless  en- 
titled by  the  General  Statutes,  chap.  aO,  sec.  24,  to  hold 
property  given  to  it  by  the  name  which  it  assumed;  and 
another  religions  society  subsequently  incor]>orated.  is  not 
entitled  to  take  the  name  or  the  i)roperty.  Gleudale  Union 
Christian  Society  v  Brown,  109  Mass.  163. 

De  Facto.  In  All  Saints'  Church  v  Lovett,  1  Hall's  Sup. 
Ct.  (N.  V.)  1!)5,  it  was  held  that  even  if  the  certificate  of 
incorporation  was  defective  in  some  particulars,  the  society 
became  a  de  facto  <'or]»oration,  and  it  might  be  piesumed 
that  all  the  re(piiremenfs  of  the  statute  were  complied  with. 
A  person  who  accepts  an  api)ointment  to  an  otMce  by  such 
a  de  facto  cori)()ration  cannot,  in  an  action  against  him 
by  the  corporation,  allege  that  the  original  incorporation 
of  the  church  was  invalid  or  irregular. 

A  betpiest  to  this  church  was  contested  on  the  ground 
that  the  proof  of  incorporation  was  defective,  but  the  court 
held  that  the  society  had  claimed  and  exercised  the  powers 
of  a  corporation  for  nearly  twenty  years,  and  it  was,  there- 
fore, to  all  intents  and  purposes  a  de  facto  corporation  and 
entitled  to  the  legacy,  Chittenden  v  Chittenden,  1  Am.  L. 
Reg.  (  X.  V.  t  r>:?S. 

Denominational    Character.      The    corporation    organized 


RELIGIOUS  CORPORATIONS  605 

under  the  religious  corporations  act  of  1S13  has  uo  denom- 
inational character,  nor  can  such  a  character  be  in  any 
manner  engrafted  upon  it.  That  i)ortion  of  the  members 
organized  into  a  separate  body  called  the  church  maj'  be- 
long to  a  jteculiar  denomination,  but  it  has  no  power  to 
impress  its  distinctive  character  upon  the  corporation,  so 
as  to  render  it  ineffaceable  by  the  voice  of  a  majority  of  the 
cor]>orati()n.  I'ctty  v  Tooker,  21  N.  Y.  1*71  ;  see  amend- 
ment of  IST"),  <  hap.  7!(. 

Dissolution,  Effect.  The  charier  of  the  corporation  was 
terminated  by  the  exnii-ation  of  the  time  fixed  by  the  stat- 
ute as  the  life  of  the  corporation,  and  the  corporation  was 
thereby  dissolved.  It  was  held  that  by  such  dissolution  the 
lu-opert}'  and  rights  of  the  corporation  l)ecame  veste«l  in  its 
members,  who  might,  as  they  did,  afterward  reincor}»orate 
and  resume  possession  of  the  property,  an<l  administer  the 
trust  vested  in  the  former  corporation.  Cong,  of  Roman 
Catholic  Churdi  v  Texas  R.  Co.,  41  Fed.  5(i4. 

Dissolution,  State  Law  Superior  to  Church  Law.  In  the 
Matter  of  the  petition  of  the  Third  Methodist  Episcopal  Ch. 
in  the  city  of  Brooklyn,  G7  Hun  (N.  Y.)  8(),  an  order  dis- 
solving the  corjjoratiou  was  sustained,  although  not  made 
in  accordance  with  tlie  oldigation  of  the  Discipline  of  the 
Methodist  E])iscopal  Church.  "No  church  Discipline  can 
supersede  the  law  of  the  State." 

Diversion  of  Trust.  A  religious  corporation  htdding  prop- 
erty charged  with  a  trust  for  certain  purjjoses  can  no  more 
divert  it  to  other  and  inconsistent  uses,  even  by  due  corjx)- 
rate  action,  than  can  any  other  trustee.  When  such  use  is 
for  the  promotion  of  the  doctrines  and  discii)line  of  some 
particular  denomination,  courts  will  i)revent  diversion  to 
the  support  of  a  ditl'erent  and  inconsistent  one,  if  even  a 
single  individual  legally  interested  objects.  Cape  v  IMy- 
month  Congregational  Cluirch.  \'M)  \Yis.  171.  See  also 
Martin  v  l>oar«l  of  Directors  of  (lerniaii  Ki'l'diined  (Mi.  of 
Peace  of  Wasliington  County,  1  I!)  ^^'is.  l!i. 

Government.     A\'hen  a  church  lias  ix-cii   iiu-oriioratcd.  the 


(;(h;        'nii;  cix  IL  law  am>  riii;  ciii  K(  ii 

rc^iiliil  ions  iiiid  cusloiiis  of  the  coiiiimiii  ion  to  wliicli  it  Ix'- 
loiif^s  rt'j^jii'diii^  Hm'  disposition  of  sccuhir  bnsiness  will  be 
respect «'d  by  llie  conrls  so  f;ii-  ;is  |)ossil)le;  and  if  the  mode 
of  ^oveninient  in  force  in  tlie  denomination  at  large  is  not 
by  congregations,  l)nt  by  snperior  clerical  personages,  as 
semblies,  synods,  <'oinH'ils,  or  consistoi'ies,  Hk;  authority  of 
these  will  not  be  displaced  if  it  can  be  upheld  consistently 
with  the  laws  of  the  sovereignty.  Klix  v  St.  Stanislaus 
ChuT-ch,  1:17  Mo.  Apj).  .'547. 

Incorporation.  The  holding  of  the  meeting,  the  election 
of  trustees,  and  the  execution  of  the  certificate  in  accordance 
with  the  statute  constitute  the  substantial  requirements 
to  create  a  corporation,  although  the  recording  is  necessary 
to  its  complete  consummation.  An  error  in  recording  or 
the  loss  of  one  or  more  seals  after  they  were  legally  and 
proi)erly  atlixed,  would  not  i)revent  the  corj»oration  from 
taking  effect  as  such.  Trustees,  St,  Jacob's  Lutheran 
Church  V  Bly,  7:5  N.  Y.  :i2:i. 

North  St.  Louis  Christian  Church  v  McGowan,  (32  Mo.  27'>, 
involved  several  questions  relating  to  the  effect  of  incorpora- 
tion. It  seems  that  at  a  regular  meeting  of  the  congregation 
the  majority  voted  to  incori)orate  the  society.  According  to 
the  rules  of  the  denomination,  this  was  held  binding  on  the 
entire  congregation,  including  the  minority.  It  was  also 
held  that  the  clerk's  list  of  mend)ers  contained  presump- 
tively the  names  of  all  persons  belonging  to  the  congrega- 
tion.    The  incorporation  was  sustained. 

Incorporation,  Collateral  Inquiry.  The  validity  or  regu- 
larity of  proceedings  for  the  incori)oratiou  of  a  religious 
society  cannot  be  determined  by  the  surrogate  in  a  proceed- 
ing on  an  a])idication  for  the  probate  of  a  will.  Matter  of 
Arden,  20  St.  Kep.  (N.  Y. )  StM. 

Incorporation,  Validity,  How  Questioned.  The  validity  of 
the  incorporation  of  a  religious  society  cannot  be  drawn 
in  (question  by  a  private  suitor  in  a  collateral  proceeding. 
The  appropriate  remedy  is  by  writ  of  quo  warranto  at 
the  suit  of  the  attorney-geueral.  or  jjerhaps  a  prosecuting 


KELTGIOUS  CORPORATIONS  607 

attorney.  Klix  v  St.  Stanislaus  Church,  137  Mo.  App. 
347. 

A  person  subscribing  to  a  fund  being  raised  for  the  pur- 
pose of  erecting  a  churdi  edifice  may,  in  an  action  against 
him  on  his  subscription,  contest  tlie  validity  of  the  incoi'i)o- 
ration  of  the  society.  In  First  Bai)list  ('hurch  v  Kapelee,  Hi 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  005,  it  was  held  that  a  certificate  of  incor- 
poration could  not  be  acknowledged  before  a  commissioner 
of  deeds,  and  having  been  so  acknowledged  such  certificate 
was  defective. 

Liability  for  Debt.  The  trustees  borrowed  money  and  gave 
their  promissory  note  therefor,  in  which  the  signers  were 
described  as  trustees,  and  the  note  was  given  for  and  on 
behalf  of  the  church.  Neither  the  loan  nor  the  note  was 
authorized  by  a  vote  of  the  trustees,  and  the  note  was  signed 
by  tliem  without  any  meeting  or  formal  action.  It  was  held 
that  the  society  was  not  liable  on  the  note.  Dennison  v 
Austin,  15  Wis.  334. 

Liability  for  Injuries  Caused  by  Negligence  of  Employee. 
An  action  cannot  be  maintained  against  a  religious  corpora- 
tion to  recover  for  injuries  sustained  by  reason  of  the  negli- 
gence of  an  emploj^ee  of  the  corporation  where  there  is  no 
allegation  that  such  emi)loyee  was  not  fully  qualified  for 
the  work  he  was  engaged  to  i)erforni,  or  that  there  has  been 
any  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  officers  of  the  corporation 
in  his  selection.  The  defendant  was  organized  as  a  mission- 
ary society.  It  had  no  funds  except  those  contributed  from 
time  to  time  by  friends  for  the  ])urpose  of  carrying  on  the 
missionary  work.  The  donors  selected  this  society  as  the 
trustee  to  cari'y  on  missionary  work.  Tlu;  estate,  fuinls,  an<l 
j)roperty  of  the  corporation  were  impressed  with  the  trust, 
and  the  court  said  it  was  not  lawful  to  diveit  these  funds 
from  the  objects  for  which  they  were  contributed  and  use 
them  in  the  ])ayment  of  damages  for  a  personal  injury  re- 
ceived by  a  stranger  at  the  hands  of  au  agent  not  shown 
to  be  unworthy  or  unfit  for  the  purposes  for  which  he  was 
emjdoyed.     Funds  contributed  for  a  public  charity  cannot 


VMS  Tin:   <'l\  IL    LAW    AM*  Till;   (III   |;(|I 

he  nsfil  loi-  the  |(;i\iiiciil  nl'  i l;i iiiii^n-s  lor  injuries  resulting 
Irmii  lilt'  iic.uliticiicc  or  niiscninlm  t  ol  the  iii;iii;ij^ers,  agents, 
or  ('iiii>I(»y('<'s  of  llic  coriMMMlioii  oi-  persons  eli;ir^e(l  with 
tlie  <lnly  of  jidiiiinisleriiij;;  Hie  Irnsl.  Haas  v  Missionary 
Sociel.v  of  (lie  MosI  Holy  Kedeenicr,  0  Misc.  (X.  Y.)  281; 
see  also  McDonald  v  Massachusetts  General  Hosjiital,  120 
Mass.  i:;2. 

Liability  for  Injuries  to  Employee.  In  Bruce  v  Central 
MelliodisI  l':|.isco|)al  Clnireh,  1  17  Mich.  2:50,  it  was  held  that 
Ihe  chui-«-h  was  liable  to  an  einplovee  of  a  contractor,  en- 
gaged in  decorating  the  clmitli  building,  for  injuries  sus- 
tained by  reason  of  the  breaking  of  defective  scalTolding 
furnished  by  the  agents  of  the  church;  and  the  fact  that 
the  society  administered  a  charitable  trust  for  the  benetit 
of  its  members  and  others  did  not  exempt  it  from  liability 
for  the  acts  of  its  agents. 

Majority,  When  Action  Binding  on  Minority.  The  acts  of 
the  majority  of  a  corjioration  are,  as  a  general  rule,  binding 
on  the  minority.  But  such  acts  to  be  so  binding  must  be 
conformable  to  the  cliartei'  of  the  corporation,  or  they 
are  of  no  effect  against  a  dissenting  minority.  The  charter 
of  every  coi-poration  is  its  constitution,  which  protects  the 
rights  of  all  the  corporators,  majority  and  minority.  Act- 
ing within  the  charter,  the  corporation  majority  is  sov- 
ereign ;  but  seeking  to  transcend  it.  the  majority  become 
powerless.  Langolf  v  Seiberlitch,  2  Parson  Eq.  Cas.  (Pa.) 
04. 

Majority's  Right.  A  majority  of  the  members  of  an  unin- 
corporated society  became  incorporated  on  the  ord  of  Sep- 
tember. ISol.  The  minority  became  incorporated  in  Novem- 
ber. lS:n.  It  was  held  that  the  corporation  composed  of 
the  majority  became  the  real  corporation  and  succeeded  to 
the  jirojierty  rights  of  the  unincori>orated  society,  includ- 
ing land  conveyed  to  it  for  church  purposes.  Baptist 
Church,  Hartford  v  Witherell,  3  Paige  Ch.  (N.  Y. )  296. 

Members.  "When  a  corporation  is  formed  for  religious  pur- 
poses every  one  who  belongs  to  the  congregation  becomes. 


RELIGIOUS  COIU'OKATIONS  609 

by  force  of  the  statutes,  a  member  of  the  corporation,  even 
though  a  few  individuals  are  named  in  the  charter  as  trus- 
tees or  directors,  and  that  document  is  issned  to  tliem.  A 
church  or  congregation  by  incorporating  is  constituted  a 
civil  political  institution,  comj)osed  of  the  members  of 
the  congregation,  and  the  sovereignty  of  the  body,  so  to 
speak,  vests  in  and  remains  with  the  majority,  regard- 
less of  whether  they  adliere  to  the  orthodox  faith  of  the 
sect  and  continue  in  fellowsliip  with  its  synods,  jjresby- 
teries,  or  other  governing  bodies,  or  become  heretical  and 
recusant.     Klix   v   St.    Stanislaus   Church,    lo7   Mo.    App. 

;;47. 

Member  Expelled,  No  Claim  for  Damages.  The  plaintitV, 
who  had  been  excommunicated  by  the  congregation,  brought 
an  action  against  the  cor]»oration  to  recover  for  money  con- 
tributed by  him  for  the  purchase  of  j)roperty.  It  was  hebl 
that  the  corporation  was  not  res])onsible  for  the  act  of  the 
congregation,  and  tlierefore  not  liable  in  damages  to  an 
excommunicated  person.  Reinke  v  German  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Trinity  Church,  17  S.  Dak.  202. 

Member's  Expulsion.  A  religions  corporation  has  no  cap- 
ital stock.  Its  constitution  and  by-laws,  as  well  as  the 
authorizing  statute,  require  all  powers  relating  to  business 
and  i)roi)e]'ty  to  be  exercised  by  a  board  of  ti'ustees,  only 
two  thirds  of  whidi  must  be  members  of  the  church.  Tlu'se 
trustees,  whose  action  the  congregations  by  wliich  they  arc 
elected  may  reject  or  ratify,  have  notliing  to  do  witli  the 
matter  of  discipline  or  ex}Milsion.  and  the  corj)or;ition  is 
not  bound  by  nor  :inswerable  in  damages  lor  (lie  coikIiui 
of  nnotiticial  meinbers.  Ifelidve  v  Gei-man  l]\  angelical  lai 
tlieran  Trinity  (Miuich,  17  S.  D.  2(;2. 

Member's  Liability.  IVIembers  are  not  iiit]i\  idnally  liable 
on  a  judgment  aiul  e.\«MMtioii  agaiiisl  llie  <  oi-poral  ion.  !»irli- 
ardson  v  Bntterlield.  VA)  Mass.    11)1. 

Members,  When  May  Not  Be  Excluded.  The  coiporai  ion  has 
no  ])ower  to  try  for  any  moral  delincnuMu  y  or  to  disfi-an- 
chise  a  corporator  in   consequence   thereof.     Mantlamus  is 


(110        Till']  ('i\ii.  LAW  A.\i»  'I'm:  i'lii  Kcii 

iiol  (he  |»r()|)('r  remedy  in  siidi  :i  case,  hut  the;  e(jr|»(jrat()i' 
has  an  adequate  remedy  al  law.  People  ex  rel  Dilcher  v 
(Jenuan    Tiiited    Kvaiijrclical   Cli.  (»f   Butlalo,  rv.'>   N.   V.   103. 

Michigan  Rule.  In  Mieliij^aii  a  i-eli;;i<)us  society  does  not 
beconjc  a  cor|)oration  merely  by  selecting  trustees.  Allen 
V  Diillie,   i::  Mich.  1. 

Minors  as  Members.  Where  a  religious  corporation  con- 
sists of  certain  ])ersons  and  their  families  it  was  held  that 
the  minor  sons  as  nuMnhers  of  the  father's  family  became 
members  of  the  corj)oration,  and  continued  such  after  arriv- 
ing at  full  age  until  they  changed  their  membership  in  some 
mode  jirovided  by  statute.    Bradbui-y  v  Cary,  5  ]\Ie.  3o9. 

New  Organization,  Effect.  "The  members  or  some  of  the 
members  of  an  insolvent  or  donnant  corporation  may  or- 
jianize  a  new  corporation  for  the  })romotion  of  the  same 
purpo.ses  to  which  the  old  one  is  dedicated,  without  becom- 
ing chargeable  with  its  debts  or  obligations."  "On  the 
other  hand,  the  mere  change  in  the  name  of  a  corporation 
has  no  effect  upon  its  legal  status  or  upon  the  rights  of 
creditors."  Allen  v  North  Des  Moines  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  127  la.  9(>. 

New  York  Rule.  Under  the  New  York  religious  corpora- 
tions act  of  1818  the  corporation  "consists  not  of  the  trus- 
tees alone,  but  of  niend)ers  of  the  society;  the  society  itself 
is  incorporated,  not  merely  the  trustees,  and  its  members 
are  the  corporators."  Gram  v  Prussia  Emigrated  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  (lerman  Society,  oG  N.  Y.  ItJl. 

Object  and  Purpose.  "A  corporation  is  formed  for  the  ac- 
(ini.sition  and  taking  care  of  the  i)roperty  of  the  church,  and 
is  in  no  sen.se  ecclesiastical  in  its  functions."  Hundley  v 
Collin.s,  i;51  Ala.  2;U. 

The  only  and  primary  object  of  the  corporation  is  the 
acquisition  an<l  taking  care  of  property.  The  rules  of  the 
church  as  to  the  discii)llne  of  members  have  no  relation  to 
the  corporate  property  or  corporate  matters.  Sale  v  IMrst 
Regular  Ra]»tist  (Miurch,  Mason  City.  (;2  la.  2(5. 

Organization.  Notice.    The  minister  refu.sed  to  read  a  notice 


RELIGIOUS  CORPORATIONS  611 

of  a  meeting  for  llic  iiu-()i])<)i-atioii  of  the  society,  and  the 
notice  was  tlierenjton  i-ea<l  by  one  of  llie  jiKMiibers  at  tlic  close 
of  a  regular  service,  after  the  benediction,  and  before  the 
congregation  had  dispersed.  This  was  held  to  be  a  sufticient 
notice  of  the  meeting,  as  the  statute  did  not  re()uire  a  notice 
to  be  given  by  a  particular  officer  or  person.  AVest  Kosh- 
kououg  Cong.  V  Otteson,  80  Wis.  62. 

Pew-Owners.  Under  the  Maine  revised  statutes  of  ISTI. 
chap.  1-,  pew-owners  of  a  meetinghouse  were  authorized  to 
form  a  corporation,  and  such  corporation  might  control  the 
meetinghouse.     ]Mayberry  v  Mead,  80  Me.  27. 

Presumption.  A  religious  society  that  in  good  faith  has 
exercised  corporate  powers  for  ten  years  must  be  treated  as 
a  legal  incoi'poration,  even  though  the  proceedings  taken  to 
incorporate  it  were  in  themselves  fatally  defective.  Uirst 
Congregational  Church,  Ionia  v  Webber,  54  Mich.  571. 

Promissory  Note.  A  ]»r()missory  note  jiurjtorting  to  be 
made  by  the  corporation  and  signed  by  its  ])resident,  secre- 
tary and  treasurer  was  held  not  enforcible  (against  the  cor- 
])orati()n)  without  jti'oof  that  the  note  was  nmde  by  author- 
ity of  the  corporation.  Trustees  have  no  ]>ower  to  bind 
the  corporation  by  individual  action,  but  the  board  must 
act  as  a  body.  People's  Bank  v  St.  Anthony's  Cli.  loii 
N.  Y.  512. 

Property,  Limitation.  If  a  corporation  takes  land  by  grant 
or  devise,  in  trust  or  otherwise,  which,  by  its  charter,  it 
cannot  hohl,  its  title  is  good  as  against  third  persons  and 
strangers;  and  the  State  alone  can  interfere.  If  the  cor- 
poration exceeds  the  ])rescribed  amount  though  it  be  by  an 
original  i)urchase,  nobody  but  the  State  can  interfere  wi(h 
the  holding  of  the  i>roperty  which  it  ac(iuires,  and  it  is  a 
matter  of  which  individuals  cannot  avail  themselves  iu  any 
way.     T)e  Cam])  v  Dobbins,  20  X.  J.  l">(i.  :>(!. 

It  is  too  late  on  ai)peal  to  raise,  for  the  tirst  time,  the 
(piestion  that  a  corjjoration  has  already  accpiired  property 
up  to  or  excee<ling  the  statutory  limit.  Such  a  (piestion 
cannot  be  raised  collaterally,  and  I  lie  huideii  of  |»roof  as  to 


(;iL'        Tin:  ri\  11,  LAW  ANh  Tin;  ciiiucii 

llir  iiiiiiMiiil  of  |iio|icrl  y  ;ilic;i(Iy  ;ic(|iii  I'(m|  i><  not  on  the 
(•<»r|»oiiilioii.     Conklin  v   l>:ivis,  (».'*.  Coiiii.  'Ml. 

Religious  Connection.  Tlic  incic  fixt  ilial  a  «<)jj)orarioii 
is  under  llie  control  o\  nicniltcrs  (»l  a  partii'iilar  clinrcli  does 
not  make  it  a  religious  corijoralioii.  Baltzell  v  C'lniidi 
Honied  lufinnary,  Baltimore,  110  Md.  244. 

Removal  to  New  House.  The  society  erected  and  moved 
into  a  new  nieetiuj;liouse.  The  act  of  goinj;  from  the  old 
meetinj;honse  to  the  new  one  was  the  act  of  tlie  society,  and 
they  took  with  Ihem  all  the  rights  of  the  society  and  body 
c()rj)orate,  vacating  none,  leaving  n«)ne  behind;  so  that  no 
]>er.sons,  after  such  removal,  could  remain  behind  and  claim 
to  be  the  ancient,  or  remains  of  the  ancient  society.  Filing 
a  new  certificate  of  incorporation  nnder  the  mistaken  sup- 
position that  the  first  certificate  had  been  lost,  sinii)ly  con- 
tinued the  old  society  and  was  not  a  new  incorporation. 
Miller  v  English,  21  N.  J.  Law,  317. 

Roman  Catholic,  Charter.  Application  for  charter  which 
was  opjiosed  by  the  bishoj)  of  the  diocese.  The  a]>])licants 
were  of  Polish  birth,  and  the  purpose  for  which  a  charter 
was  asked  was  stated  to  be  ''the  support  of  public  worship 
according  to  the  faith,  doctrine,  discijdine,  and  usages  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church.''  The  bishop  alleged  that  the 
object  was  not  as  so  stated,  but  is  really  to  secure  the  incor- 
]>oration  of  a  schismatic  body  which  has  received  the  cen- 
sure and  condemnation  of  the  duly  constituted  authorities 
of  the  church  mentioned;  that  under  the  canon  law  of  that 
church  no  such  organization  as  that  proposed  can  be  formed 
except  with  the  couseut  of  the  ordinary  or  bishop,  and  that 
he  has  not  given  his  consent,  and  will  not  do  so;  that  i>ublic 
wor.ship  according  to  the  usages  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  cannot  be  conducted  without  a  regularly  ordained 
l)riest  in  good  standing,  whose  attendance  could  not  be 
obtained  in  the  })resent  instance;  and,  finally,  that  the  pos- 
session of  a  charter  would  only  make  it  possible  for  a  group 
of  factious,  turbulent,  and  designing  per.sons  to  delude  Cath- 
olics of  I'olish  birth  into  the  idea  that  this  was  a  regularly 


RELIGIOUS  CORFORATIONS  613 

orgaiiized  Romau  Catholic  congregation.  These  allegations 
were  admitted  by  counsel  for  the  applicants.  The  court 
said  it  had  no  concern  with  the  general  policy  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  and  could  take  no  notice  of  its  schisms 
and  differences  on  ]>()ints  of  doctrine  and  discipline.  But 
while  a  schisiiiatical  body  of  tlic  ( liurdi  had  a  legal  right  to 
a  separate  incorporation,  its  jipidicalion  for  a  charter  must 
be  <lone  ()j)eidy  and  witJi  due  knowledge  of  the  character  of 
the  body,  but  such  a  body  could  not  be  i)ernutted  to  appro- 
priate the  name,  and  with  it  the  appearance  of  regularity 
which  belongs  to  the  duly  established  organization.  The 
name  proposed  attaches  to  and  covers  the  doctrine,  disci- 
pline, and  usages  of  the  general  church  with  which  it  is 
associated.  Tu  the  use  of  that  name  the  body  wliich  had  an 
unqualitied  right  to  it  was  entitled  to  i)rotection  against  its 
usurpation  by  others  who  have  no  such  right,  and  who  only 
seek  to  employ  it  for  ])urj»oses  of  deception.  The  ajjplica- 
tiou  for  a  charter  was  refused.  Re  Charter  Church  of 
Mother  of  God,  Czenstochowa,  5  Lack.  Leg.  N.  (Pa.)  128. 

Status.  Religions  societies  are,  in  this  State  and  nation, 
civil  bodies  politic,  and  unlike  the  ecclesiastical  corpora- 
tions of  England,  which  are  composed  only  of  clericals,  such 
as  archbishops,  deans,  monks  and  abbots,  and  amenable 
only  to  si)iritnal  courts.  Klix  v  St.  Stanislaus  Church, 
137  Mo.  App.  347. 

Status,  As  Compared  with  English  Parson.  A  religions  cor- 
poration in  this  country  stands  in  the  place  of  the  i)arson 
in  England,  who,  as  a  corporation  sole,  holds  the  legal  title 
to  the  estates  of  tlie  cluirch.  Kut  those  societies  could  n<>t, 
at  common  law,  be  seized  under  writs  of  execution  dircctetl 
to  the  sheriff.  Beam  v  First  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
Lancaster,  Pa.,  3  Pa.  L.  J.  Rep.  343. 

Taxation.  The  property  of  a  religious  corporation  is  not 
exempt  from  assessment  for  local  imj)rovements.  Harlem 
IVesbyterian  (Muirch  v  N.  Y.,  5  Hun.  (N.  Y.)  442. 

Three  Elements.  The  statiitc  recognizes  three  distinet 
classes  or  bodies  as  existing   in    tlie  religious   <(»rpoiMt ion 


CI  I        Tin:  ('i\  iL  I, AW  AM)  Tin:  ciniicn 

iiiid  (Icliiics  llicif  iclnlivc  powers  :iihI  duties:  l-'irsl.  The 
elnn"«li,  «>r  spirihiiil  body,  coiisisliiif'^  of  the  ollice  bearers 
:iimI  (((iiiiiMmieimls.  Second.  The  conj^re^atiini,  or  electors, 
einlnaeinji;  all  the  stated  hearers  oi-  atteiidai)ts  on  divine 
\vorshi|>  who  are  competent  to  vote  for  trustees.  Third. 
The  trustees  of  the  <()r|M)ration,  wlio  have  the  control  of  all 
its  teni|>oralities,  to  be  improved,  nsed,  and  manaj^ed  by 
them  lor  the  benefit  of  all  the  stated  hearers  and  Hh"  com- 
municants as  far  as  practicable. 

The  church,  or  sjiiritnal  body,  as  to  its  doctrine,  govem- 
uieiit  and  worship  is  to  be  governed  and  regulated  by  its 
own  ]»ecnliar  rules,  which  neither  the  trustees  nor  the  con- 
gregation have  any  right  to  interfere  with  or  alter  without 
the  consent  of  the  church  itself.  Lawyer  v  Cipperly,  7  Paige 
Ch.  (N.  Y.)  281. 

Trustee.  A  corporatiou  cannot  act  as  trustee  in  relation 
to  any  matter  in  which  it  has  no  interest.  But  where  i)ro]»- 
erty  is  devised  or  granted  to  a  corporation,  })ai'tly  for  its 
own  use  and  partly  for  the  use  of  others,  the  right  of  the 
corporation  to  take  and  hold  the  property*  for  its  own  use. 
carries  with  it,  as  a  necessai*}'  incident,  the  power  to  exe- 
cute that  part  of  the  trust  which  relates  to  others.  Ke 
Howe,  1  Paige  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  213. 

Trustees,  Powers.  In  a  corporation  organized  under  the 
New  York  religious  corporations  act  of  1813  the  trustees 
elected  and  acting  as  such,  and  their  successors,  are  vested 
with  the  custody,  possession,  management,  and  legal  con- 
trol of  all  the  property  and  temjtoralities  belonging  to  their 
particular  society,  in  the  same  manner  and  to  the  same  effect 
as  the  directors  of  private  corporations  are  entitkMl  to  the 
possession  and  contnd  of  their  proi)erty.  an<l  may.  therefore, 
maintain  an  action  to  recover  the  possession  of  the  church 
l)ropeity  fiom  whicli  they  have  been  evicted  by  the  members 
of  the  society.  Members  of  the  society  cannot  forcibly 
take  i)os.session  of  the  church  building  of  the  corporation 
and  hold  and  conti-ol  it  in  oi>])osition  to  the  authority,  will, 
and  re(piirenient  of  the  trustees.    All  such  acts  of  individual 


RELIGIOUS  COKrORATIONS  015 

corporators,  or  of  llic  wliolc  body  of  tlie  corporation,  cxclu 
sive  of,  aud  in  oi)i)osition   to  the   trustees,  are  illegal  and 
all  such  persous  so  acting  are  simply   trespassers.      First 
Methodist  Episco])al   Churcii,  Attica   v   Filkins,  o  T.   cV:   C. 
(N.  Y.)  I'T!). 

Trustees,  Majority  Must  Meet  and  Act.  Where  there  is  a 
detinite  body  in  a  cori)oration  the  niajoiity  of  that  (UMinilc 
body  must  not  only  exist  at  the  time  wlien  any  a(  t  is  to  be 
done  by  them,  but  a  majority  of  that  body  must  attend  the 
assembly  where  the  act  is  to  be  done.  Moore  v  liectoi-,  St. 
Thomas,  4  Abb.  N.  C.   (N.  Y.)  51. 

Unauthorized  Sale  of  Property.  If  a  religions  corporation 
sells  and  conveys  real  j)roperty  without  an  order  of  the 
court,  such  a  sale  and  transfer  may  be  rescinded  upon  the 
return,  or  offer  to  return,  the  consideration  received.  Asso- 
ciate Presbyterian  Congregation,  Hebron  v  Hanna,  ll;>  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  12. 

Who  Constitute.  Tn  the  Protestant  Episcoi)al  Church  the 
vestry,  and  not  the  congregation,  constitute  the  cori)oration. 
Stubbs  V  Vestry  of  St.  -lohn's  Ch.  !)()  Md.  207;  see  also  Tarter 
V  Gibbs,  24  Md.  l]2:i. 

A  religious  corporation,  un<lcr  the  New  Y^ork  statute,  con- 
sists not  of  the  trustees  alone  but  of  the  members  of  the 
society.  The  society  itself  is  incorj)orated,  and  its  mem- 
bers are  the  corjxn-ators.  The  relation  of  the  trustees  to  the 
society  is  not  th:!t  of  a  private  trustee  to  the  cestui  (|\u' 
trust,  but  they  are  its  ollicers,  with  the  jxjwers  of  the  ollicers 
of  other  corporations.  Such  societies  do  not  belong  to  the 
class  of  ecclesiastical  corporations  in  the  sense  of  the  Eng- 
lish law,  but  are  to  be  regarde<l  as  civil  coi'porations  gov- 
erned by  the  rules  of  the  common  law.  l)ell))ort  Parish  v 
Tooker,  2J)  Barb.  (  X.  Y. )  25(i. 

As  to  who  ai-e  cor|M)rators,  see  Burrell  v  Associate  Re- 
formed Church,  Seneca,  44  liarb.  (  N.  Y. )  2S2.  holding  that 
the  corporation  consists  of  all  of  llic  iiKMubcis  of  ilic  society 
entitled  to  vote  in  the  election  (tt  liiistees. 

The    trustees,   deacons,   clmichwardeiis,   or   other   similar 


Chi        'I'm:  ('i\  iL  LAW  .wh  'riii:  ciii  i:*  ii 

( (Hirers  of  ;i  II  iiiiim  iii|n»i;i  led  cliiircli.  i  I'  <i  I  i/,fiis  of  I  lie  I  iii  led 
SIjiIcs.  jirc  :i  corjionit  inn  for  llic  |iiii)H)S('  ol"  Inking  itiid  lioM- 
in;^  ill  sncccssioii  jill  ic:il  :iii)l  p<'is<»ii;il  cslMtc  <ii\<Mi  lo  their 
(Iinreli.  Jiojin  v  (Mii-isi  i;iii  (liiireli,  Soiilli  I);iiil>iii y,  (>1  N.  11. 
I'CO. 

ruder  Hie  M;ii'yliiiid  act  of  ISOI',  providiii*^  for  the  incor- 
porsitioii  of  reliii;io»)s  societies,  the  trustees  ;in<l  not  the  coii- 
•^rcj^atiou  constitute  tlie  coipornle  l»(»dy.  Alrir;iii  Meihotlist 
r.rlhel  ChuiTh.  T>,al«iiiiuiv  v  Caiiiiack,  1'  Md.  Ch.  14:5. 

Young  Men's  Christian  Association.  This  association  wa.s 
liehl  not  a  religious  corporation  w  ithiii  the  New  ^'oi-k  Trans- 
fer Tax  Law  as  anieinh'd  in  1!M)0,  and  therelore  not  exeni]»t 
from  the  i)aynient  of  a  transfer  tax  on  a  legacy.  Ko  Watson, 
171   X.  V.  250. 

In  Matter  of  Fay.  ^7  Misc.  (N.  Y)  532,  it  was  held  that 
the  association  (incorporated  under  a  special  act)  was  not 
a  religious  corporation  within  the  meaning  of  the  Transfer 
Tax  Act.  and  was  therefore  not  exempt  from  taxation  under 
that  statute. 

Young  Women's  Christian  Association.  The  work  of  the 
Young  Women's  Christian  Association,  in  accoi'dance  with 
the  ohjects  of  its  incoi'i>oration,  includes  tlie  holding  of 
gospel  services,  teaching  I^nglish  to  foreigners,  and  furnish- 
ing food  and  lodging  for  women  i>assing  through  the  city, 
for  which  comi>en.sation  is  received  from  those  who  are  able 
t(»  i»ay.  Its  general  object  is  religious  and  chaiitable.  and 
its  j)roperty  exclusively  devoted  to  that  object  would  un- 
doubtedly be  exemjtt  from  general  taxation  under  the  New 
Hampshiie  statutes.  It  is  therefore  entitled  to  exemption 
from  the  inheritance  tax.    Carter  v  Whitcomb.  74  N.  H.  482. 


RELIGIOUS  ESTABLISHMENT 

Defined,  617. 

Defined.  A  relij^ious  establi?sliineiit  is  where  the  State 
prescribes  a  foriinihny  of  faith  and  worship  for  the  rule 
and  governnienl  of  all  the  subjects.  Muzzy  v  Wilkins, 
Smith's  N.  H.  Rep.  1. 


617 


RELIGIOUS  FREEDOM 

American  rule,  618. 

Charitable  inKlitution.s,  618. 

Civil  fourts,  limitation  of  power,  619. 

Civil  courts,  610. 

Compulsory  chunh  attcnciantc,  619. 

Discrimination  not  allowed,  620. 

Limitation,  620. 

Louisiana,  621. 

Mjussachusetts,  621. 

Memorials,  622. 

Minor  children,  622. 

Officer,  622. 

0-cgon,  623. 

Pennsylvania,  623. 

Polygamy,  623. 

Sectarian  controversies,  624. 

United  States,  624. 

Virginia,  625. 

Voluntary  basis,  625. 

American  Rule.  In  this  coniiti-y  the  full  and  free  right 
to  entertain  any  religious  belief,  to  practice  any  religious 
principle,  and  to  teach  any  religious  doctrine  which  does 
not  violate  the  laws  of  morality  and  ])ro])erty,  and  which 
does  not  infringe  j)ersonal  riglits,  is  conceded  to  all.  The 
law  knows  no  heresy,  and  is  committed  to  the  sui)port  of 
no  dogiiui,  the  establishment  of  no  sect.  The  right  to  organ- 
ize voluntary  religious  associations  to  assist  in  the  expres- 
sion and  dissemination  of  any  religious  doctrine,  and  to 
create  tribunals  for  the  decision  of  controverted  questions 
of  faith  within  the  association,  and  for  the  ecclesiastical 
government  of  all  the  individual  members,  congregations, 
and  officers  within  the  general  association,  is  unquestioned. 
Watson  V  Jones,  V^  Wall.  (U.  S).  G70. 

Charitable  Institutions.     In  Reg.  v  Haslelnirst.  lo  Q.  B.  D. 

618 


ki:lk510US  freedom  (;i!) 

(Eng.)  253,  the  oomi  sustained  the  eini)h>ynient  of  a  Koinaii 
Catholic  clei'gyinaii  to  minister  to  the  religious  wants  of  the 
Roman  (.'atholic  inmates  of  the  workhouse.  Citing  the 
poor  law  amendment  act  of  1834,  which,  in  substance,  i)ro- 
vided  that  no  rules  or  orders  of  the  Poor  Law  Commis- 
sioners should  oblige  any  inmate  of  a  workhouse  to  attend 
any  religious  service  contrary  to  his  religious  princijiles, 
and  that  it  should  be  lawful  for  any  licensed  ministci-  of 
the  religious  persuasion  of  any  innuite  to  visit  the  woik 
house  for  the  i)urpose  of  affording  religious  assistance  lo 
such  inmate  and  instructing  his  child  or  children  in  ihe 
principles  of  their  religion. 

Civil  Courts,  Limitation  of  Power.  Religious  freedom  and 
religious  toleration  would  not  long  survive  if  one  mend)er 
of  a  religious  organization,  feeling  himself  aggrieve<l  in 
some  matter  of  religious  faith  or  church  polity,  could  suc- 
cessfully appeal  to  the  secular  courts  for  redress,  and  have 
these  courts  determine  that  one  faction  of  a  religious  or- 
ganization was  orthodox,  an<l  living  and  acting  in  conform- 
ity with  the  organic  creed  of  Die  church,  and  another  faction 
was  violating  and  disregarding  such  organic  law.  Wehmer 
V  Fokenga,  57  Neb.  510. 

Civil  Courts.  Freedom  of  religious  profession  and  wor- 
shij)  cannot  be  maintained,  if  the  civil  courts  trench  upon 
the  domain  of  the  church,  construe  its  canons  and  rules, 
dictate  its  disciidine,  and  regulate  its  trials.  Chase  v 
Cheney,  5S  111.  509. 

Compulsory  Church  Attendance.  Testatrix  bequeathed  to 
a  son  a  sum  of  money  to  be  jtaid  in  installments,  on  condi- 
tion that  he  regularly  attend  a  sjjecitied  church  "when  not 
sick  in  bed,  or  prevented  by  accident  or  other  unavoidable 
occurrence."  It  was  held  that  this  bequest  did  not  violah? 
the  provision  of  the  Wisconsin  constitulion  securing  reli- 
gious toleration.  The  provision  in  the  will  was  not  against 
public  policy.  Testatrix  had  a  right  to  impose  such  a  con 
dition  in  connection  with  the  bequest.  Re  Paulson  Will, 
127  Wis.  612. 


<;lm>        'imii;  (M\ii.  law  .\m»  rin;  ciukcii 

Discrimination  Not  Allowed.  I'doic  llic  i-onsiihiiioii  .lews 
and  Gentiles  ni-e  ('(|ii;il  ;  l»y  llic  l:i\\  lliey  musi  he  ticiilcf] 
;ilike.  It  WJis  licM  lli.il  :iii  urdiiiiince  of  the  City  Coiiiicil  of 
Slweveport,  Loiiisinii;!,  |»roliil»it  iiii;  llie  t  r;iiis;icl  ion  of  cer- 
lain  kinds  of  business  on  Snii<l;iy,  Inil  ex('ni|i(  in;:;  fioni  the 
oi)ei';ilion  of  the  ordinnnce  jtersons  who  kej)t  Satni-day  as 
the  Sabbath,  was  invalid.  Shrevepoit  v  Levy,  2<»  La.  Ann. 
071. 

Limitation.  Tieli^ions  liberty  does  not  inclnde  tiie  rij^ht 
to  inti-odnee  ami  earry  (Mit  every  scheme  or  i)nrpo.se  whieh 
persons  see  fit  to  claim  as  part  of  their  religious  system. 
While  thei-e  is  no  legal  antliority  to  constrain  belief,  no  one 
can  lawfully  sti-etch  his  own  liberty  of  action  so  as  to  inter- 
fere with  that  of  his  neighbois,  or  violate  peace  and  good 
order.    Matter  of  Frazee,  (\:\  Mich.  :3D0. 

By  the  constitutional  provision  guaranteeing  religious 
freedom,  unlimited  freedom  of  conscience  and  religious 
belief  and  profession  is  secured  to  every  person,  but  it 
affords  no  justification  for  acts  or  practices  in  religious 
services  which  disturb  the  public  peace,  or  disturb  others 
in  their  religious  worship;  and  a  statute  prohibiting  acts 
having  a  tendency  to  endanger  the  public  peace,  or  to  dis- 
tract the  attention  and  interrupt  the  quiet  of  others,  is  not 
in  conflict  with  this  constitutional  i)rovision,  although  the 
l)rohibited  acts  nmy  form  a  part  of  the  services  of  religious 
worship.  Religious  liberty,  as  recognized  and  secured  by 
the  constitution,  does  not  mean  a  license  to  engage  in  acts 
having  a  tendency  to  disturb  the  public  peace  under  the 
form  of  religious  worship,  nor  does  it  include  the  right  to 
disregard  those  regulations  which  the  Legislature  have 
deemed  reasonably  necessaiy  for  the  security  of  jjublic 
order.  A  reasonable  measure  of  prevention  to  avoid  dis- 
turbance is  not  an  infringement  of  constitutional  rights. 
State  V  White,  04  N.  H.  -18,  holding  that  beating  a  drum  in 
a  compact  part  of  the  town  without  the  command  of  an 
authorized  military  oflicer,  as  required  by  law,  could  not 
be  justified  by  the  claim  that  the  act  was  done  in  accordance 


RKlJdlorS  FREEDOM  »;i>l 

with  the  defeudanls'  sense  of  religious  duty  aud  in  worship- 
ing God  aeeordiiig  to  llie  <lietates  of  their  own  consciences, 
and  that  the}'  were  not  disturbing  the  public  peace  or  the 
religious  worship  of  others. 

Louisiana.  In  the  treaty  of  cession  (  ISOoi  tlie  First  Con- 
sul (Napoleon  Bonaparte j  of  the  French  Republic  exacted 
a  stipulation  iu  favor  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  terri- 
tory, that  they  should  be  incorporate<l  into  the  Union,  and 
admitted  as  soon  as  possible,  according  to  the  principles  of 
the  federal  coustitutiou,  to  an  eujoynient  of  all  the  rights, 
advantages  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  tiie  United  States, 
and  that  iu  the  meantime  they  should  be  maintained  and  pro- 
tected in  the  free  enjoyment  of  their  liberty,  property,  aud 
the  religion  which  they  jjrofessed.  This  stii)ulation  was 
personal  to  every  iidiabitant  of  the  country  in  relation  to 
his  property  aud  the  religion  he  might  i)rofess.  He  was 
solemnly  guaranteed  the  free  enjoyment  of  his  religious 
opinions,  whatever  they  might  be.  It  was  not  a  stii)ulatiou 
in  favor  of  any  particular  church  or  religious  establish- 
ment, but  a  full  guai-anty  to  every  inhabitant  of  the  cede<l 
ju-ovince  that  he  should  not  be  molested  on  account  of  his 
religious  belief  or  form  of  worship.  No  nmn  can  be  molested, 
so  long  as  he  demeans  himself  in  an  orderly  and  peaceable 
manner,  on  account  of  his  mode  of  worship,  his  religious 
ojjinions  and  ])rofession,  and  the  religious  functions  he  nuiy 
choose  to  perform,  according  to  the  rites,  doctrine,  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  church  or  sect  to  which  he  may  belong,  au<l 
this  absolute  immunity  e.xtends  to  all  religions  and  to  every 
sect.  Wardens  of  the  Church  of  St.  I^ouis  v  Blanc,  8  Rob. 
Re.   (La.  I  52. 

Massachusetts.  Tlie  Declaration  of  Rights  in  the  Consti- 
tution of  Massachusetts  was  intended:  "1.  To  establish,  at 
all  events,  libeity  of  conscience  and  clioice  of  the  mode  of 
worshi]*.  2.  To  assert  the  right  of  the  State,  in  its  i)olitical 
cajiacity,  to  reipiire  and  enforce  the  public  worshij)  of  (Jod. 
3.  To  deny  the  right  of  establishing  any  hierarchy,  or  any 
power  in   the  State   itself,  to   require  conformity  to  any 


cl'l:        Tin:  cin  il  law  and  tiii:  cim  i;<"Ii 

erred  «»i-  roriiiiihiiy  ol'  w  oi-sliip."     A<limis  \    Houc,    11   Mass. 

Memorials.  IT  jjioiis  |»ei-s()iis  elioose.  as  an  ineideiit  of  their 
Ii(nis«'  of  worship,  so  to  const  met,  or  (h'eorale  it  UH  to  con- 
timially  call  to  mind  deet'ased  pei-sons  noted  for  piety  or 
(h'volion,  il  in  no  way  I  i'ans<;resses  their  fi-anehise.  Cush- 
nian  v  Chnrtli  (tf  (lood  Siieplierd,  188  I'a.  S|.  i:{8. 

Minor  Children.  1 1  is  the  parent's  duty,  as  well  as  his 
rijiht,  to  j;ive  his  ehildicn  moral  and  i-elijiions  inslrnetion. 
This  i)arental  authority,  however,  is  always  lor  tlie  j^uod  of 
the  ehildreii,  and  therefore  is  not  absolute  in  all  thin;^  oi- 
des]K)tic.  It  must  at  all  times  be  exercised  in  subservience 
to  the  laws  aiul  to  the  rights  of  others.  He  dare  not  enforce 
it  to  commit  acts  of  i<lolatrv  or  blaspluniy.  lie  dare  not 
force  it  to  abandon  the  paths  of  innocence  and  viitue.  an<l 
comi)el  it  to  wor.ship  at  a  temple  dedicated  to  vice,  corrnp 
tion,  and  abomination.  Against  any  .such  i)arental  control 
our  constitution  and  laws  would  at  once  interjiose  their 
authority  and  wrest  the  child  from  the  dangei-s  of  such  false 
teachings  and  from  the  inllnence  of  such  uidioly  ojiinions 
and  i)ractices.  All  parental  authority  must,  in  every  well- 
regulated.  Christian  community,  be  subject  to  its  institu- 
tions and  its  laws.  Parental  authority  is  human  authority. 
No  lawmaking  ]>ower  can  confer  upon  parents  the  right 
to  control  or  interfere  with  the  rights  of  conscience  of  a 
minor  child  who  has  arrived  at  the  years  of  discretion.  A 
father  has  no  right  to  control  or  interfere  with  the  rights 
of  conscience  of  a  minor  child  in  relation  to  the  worshij)  of 
Almighty  God.  His  exercise  of  parental  authority  so  as  to 
control  or  interfere  with  the  rights  of  conscience  of  such 
minor  child  would  be  an  exercise  of  human  authority  so  as 
to  control  or  interfere  with  the  rights  of  conscience  in  a 
particular  case,  wliereas  it  is  declared  that  it  cannot  be 
done  in  any  case  whatever.  Commonwealth  v  Sigman.  '2 
n-Avk   I  Pa.)  30. 

Officer.  The  Constitution  of  Missouri,  art.  2.  sec.  T).  de- 
clares that  no  person  can,  on  account  of  his  religious  opin- 


RELIGIOUt?  FKKEDOM  (\'2:\ 

ious,  be  reiKleied  ineligible  to  any  office  of  tru.st  or  inofit. 
This  was  held  to  apply  to  a  gnardian  of  a  minor  who  was 
said  to  occupy  an  office  of  trust  under  the  constitution. 
State  ex  rel  Baker  v  Bird,  253  Mo.  5G9. 

Oregon.  The  right  of  mankind  to  believe  and  teach  such 
doctrines  regarding  religion  as  meet  the  a])proval  of  their 
consciences  is  recognized  under  our  form  of  government  as 
inherent,  but  it  is  freely  accorded  to  every  sect  and  denom- 
ination in  the  land,  and  is  so  interwoven  with  the  ]>rinci})les 
which  underlie  our  political  fabric  that  it  cannot  be  taken 
away  without  the  general  consent  or  a  violent  revoluti<jn. 
The  law  not  only  tolerates  the  privilege,  but  it  jirotects 
every  one  iu  the  enjoyment  of  it.  The  people  are  entitled  as 
an  incident  to  such  right  to  form  as.sociations,  adopt  creeds, 
organize  churches,  and  establish  seminaries  of  learning  for 
the  advancement  of  tlieir  peculiar  tenets  of  faith,  and  to  ac- 
quire i)roperty  an<l  erect  buildings  to  aid  them  iu  accom- 
l)lishing  that  end.    Liggett  v  Ladd.  17  Ore.  89. 

Pennsylvania.  Under  the  Pennsylvania  constitution  all 
men  have  a  natural  and  indefeasible  right  to  worshij)  Al- 
mighty God  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own  con- 
science, and  no  human  authority  can  in  any  case  whatever 
control  or  interfere  with  the  rights  of  conscience.  This  law 
was  not  intended  to  exempt  any  religious  society  from  the 
respect  that  is  due  to  the  organization  and  moral  and 
social  order  of  the  State,  from  necessity  of  holding  its  land 
under  the  State,  and  according  to  its  laws.  But  it  does 
mean,  that  for  its  own  internal  order,  and  for  the  mode  in 
which  it  fulfills  its  functions,  it  is  to  be  a  law  unto  it  self. 
or  have  its  law  within  itself,  provided  it  kwp  within  the 
bounds  of  social  order  and  morality.  McCiinnis  v  Watson, 
41  l»a.  St.  9. 

Polygamy.  Bigamy  and  i)olygamy  are  (  liim-s  by  the  laws 
of  all  civilized  and  Christ ian  countries,  by  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  and  of  Idaho,  where  the  ca.se  arose.  To  call 
their  advocacy  a  tenet  of  religion  is  to  oHVmkI  the  cnuiuKiii 
sense  of  mankind.     However  free   the  exercise  (»l    reliuion 


<;lm         tup:  ('I\il  law  and  tiii:  ciii  i^cii 

may  Ix'.  il  must  be  suhordinale  lo  the;  criiiiinal  laws  of  the 
country,  pusHed  with  reference  to  actioiiH  regarded  by  iH't\- 
eral  consent  as  properly  the  subjects  of  punitive  lej^islation. 
The  statutes  of  tlie  territory  of  Idaho  excluding,'  from  th<' 
right  of  sulfra^e  bigamists  and  j)olyganiists,  and  any  persons 
advocating  plural  mari-iages,  were  sustained  as  a  valid 
exercise  of  legislative  j)ower.    Davis  v  Beason,  i:i.">  I'.  S,  '.V-V.\. 

Sectarian  Controversies.  Keligious  freedom  is  one  of  the 
distinguishing  characteristics  of  our  country.  No  one  sect 
of  Christians  is,  in  law,  entitled  to  ju'eeminence  over  an- 
other; and  all  denominations  of  Christians,  while  they 
demean  themselves  i)eaceably,  nun'  eipially  claim  the  pro- 
tection of  the  law.  Every  religious  sect  is  free  to  profess 
and  to  propagate  its  sentiments,  to  inculcate  them  by  words 
and  in  writing,  and  consequently  to  display  the  errors  of 
others.  And  while  the  various  combatants  confine  them- 
selves to  using  the  arms  of  reason  alone,  preserving  good 
humor  and  Christian  charity  and  forbearance  toward  each 
other,  the  peace  of  the  ^^tate  will  not  suffer,  and  the  govern- 
ment and  laws  will  protect  them  all.  Doubtless  more  good 
than  evil  results  from  the  diversity  of  religious  opinions 
which  })revail  at  the  i)reseut  <lay,  and  from  the  contro- 
versies which  exist  between  the  dififerent  sects.  Individ- 
uals are  excited  to  search  the  Scriptures  for  themselves, 
and  rival  sects  are  more  emulous  to  cultivate  and  dis])lay  the 
virtue  of  the  Christian  character.  Commonwealth  v  Bat- 
chelder,  Thac.  Cr.  Cas.  (Mass.)  101. 

United  States.  Each  individual  within  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  United  States,  whether  he  be  within  the  limits  of  a 
State  or  elsewhere,  has  a  right  to  determine  for  himself  all 
those  questions  which  relate  to  his  relation  to  the  Creator 
of  the  Universe.  No  civil  authority  can  coerce  him  to 
accept  any  religious  doctrine  or  teaching,  or  restrain  him 
from  associating  him.self  with  -auy  class  or  organization 
which  promulgates  religious  teaching.  Whether  he  shall 
adoi)t  any  religious  views,  or,  if  so.  what  shall  be  the  char- 
acter of  these  views,  and   the  pei'sons  with  whom  he  .shall 


RELIGIOUS  FREEDOM  025 

associate  in  carrying  out  the  particular  views,  are  all  ques- 
tions addressed  to  his  indivi<lual  couscieuce,  which  no  hu- 
man authority'  has  the  right,  even  in  the  slightest  way,  to 
interfere  with,  so  long  as  his  practices  in  carrying  out  his 
peculiar  views  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  peace  and  good 
order  of  society.    Mack  v  Kinie,  129  Ga.  1. 

For  a  sketch  of  the  origin  and  adoption  of  the  First 
Amendment  to  the  constitution  of  the  riiitcd  States,  see 
Reynolds  v  U.  S.,  1)8  U.  S.  145. 

Virginia.  Consistent  with  the  constitution  of  N'irginia  the 
Legislature  could  not  create  or  continue  a  religious  estab- 
lishment which  sliould  liave  exclusive  rights  and  prerog- 
atives, or  compel  the  citizens  to  worslii])  niuler  a  stipulated 
form  or  discipline,  or  to  pay  taxes  to  those  whose  creed 
they  could  not  conscientiously  believe.  But  the  free  exer- 
cise of  religion  cannot  be  justh'  deemed  to  be  restrained  by 
aiding  with  equal  attention  the  votaries  of  every  sect  to  per- 
form their  own  religious  duties,  or  by  establishing  funds 
for  the  support  of  ministers,  for  public  chai-ities,  for  the 
endowment  of  churches,  or  for  the  sepulture  of  the  dead. 
And  that  these  j)urposes  coiild  be  better  secured  and  cher- 
ished b}'  corporate  powers  cannot  be  doubted  by  any  person 
who  has  attended  to  the  diflficulties  which  surround  all  vol- 
untary associiitions.    Terrett  v  Taylor,  !)  ('ranch  (  T.  S. )  4:5. 

Voluntary  Basis.  Undei-  our  form  and  theory  of  govern- 
ment every  ecclesiastical  system  rests  on  the  voluntary  prin- 
ci])le,  and  the  sui)i»ort  and  maintenance  of  churches  depend 
on  voluntary  contributions.  No  ecclesiastical  organization 
in  this  country  possesses  legal  capacity  unless  incorporated, 
or  unless  it  is  ac(|nired  by  a  conveyance  of  jn-operty  in  trust 
for  tlie  use  ami  benetil  of  the  cliui-ch.  The  fourth  section  of 
the  Alabama  declaration  of  lights  provides  "that  no  one  shall 
be  compelled  by  law  to  attend  any  i)lace  of  worsliij),  nor  to 
pa}'  any  tithes,  taxes,  or  other  rate  for  building  or  repairing 
any  place  of  worshij),  or  for  sustaining  any  minister  or  min- 
istry."   State  ex  rel  McNeill  v  Hibb  St.  (Miunli,  St  Ala.  '2'.]. 

See  also  article  on  Kcli^ions  Toleration. 


RELIGIOUS  GARB 


Now  York,  626. 
I'cniisylvania,  020. 


New  York.  In  ( )'( 'oniini-  v  llciidi-ick,  ISl  X.  Y.  421,  tlie 
court  sust;»in«'<l  llic  \;ili(lily  of  jin  oi-der  iujkIc  l»y  tin-  New 
York  Sl;i1('  Sn|i(Miiil('ii(h'iit  ol"  IMiblie  Instriitlioii  pioliihit- 
\u*i  Ic.ulicr.s  Iroiii  wojiriii*;  :i  distiiutive  reli<;i()»i.s  <i;;irh  while 
cnjiJijitMl  in  tiic  work of  teacliinji;  in  a  j)iiblic  school.  Two 
Icachcr.s  aHcctcd  by  this  order  were  members  of  the  Sister- 
hood of  St.  Jos('|»h.  and  they  continued  to  wear  the  reli<;ious 
<>arb  of  the  society  after  notice  of  the  superintendent's  order. 
They  were  lield  not  entitled  to  recover  compensation  for 
services  rendered  while  wearing  such  garb  after  notice  of 
such  order. 

Pennsylvania.  The  religious  belief  of  many  teachers  all 
over  the  commonwealth  is  indicated  by  rlieir  api)arel. 
Quakers  or  Friends,  Ommish,  Dnnkards,  and  other  sects 
wear  garments  which  at  once  disclose  their  membership  in 
a  religious  sect.  Ministers  or  preachers  of  many  Protes- 
tant denominations  wear  distinctively  clerical  garb.  No 
one  has  yet  thought  of  excluding  them  as  teachers  from  the 
schoolroom  on  the  ground  that  the  peculiarity  of  their  dress 
wonld  teach  to  pupils  the  distinctive  doctrines  of  the  sect 
to  which  they  belonged.  The  dress  is  but  the  announce- 
ment of  a  fact  that  the  wearer  holds  a  particular  religious 
belief.  Hysong  v  Gallitzin  Borough  School  District,  KM  I'a. 
G21).     See  also  the  article  on  Sectarian  Instruction. 

In  181>5  an  act  was  passed  providing  that  no  teacher  in 
any  i)ublic  school  of  this  commonwealth  shall  wear  in  said 
school,  or  whilst  engaged  in  the  performance  of  his  or  her 
duty  as  such  teacher,  any  dress,  mark,  emblem,  or  insignia 
indicating  the  fact  that  such  teacher  is  a  mend>er  or  adher- 
ent of  any  religious  order,  sect,  or  denomination.  The  act 
was  sustained  in  Commonwealth  v  Herr.  229  Pa.  132. 

626 


RELIGIOUS  PRINCIPLES 

Defined,  627. 

Limits  of  inquiry,  627. 

Defined.  Religious  j)i'inciples  are  those  sentiments,  con- 
cerning the  rehitions  between  God  and  man,  whicli  may  influ- 
ence hunum  conduct.  Of  these  perhajjs  the  most  influential 
hitherto  has  been  the  view  entertained  as  to  the  probability 
that  God  would  i)unish  vice.  A  person's  sentiments  on  that 
subject  must  be  deemed  part  of  his  religious  principles.  It 
is  urged  that  disbelief  cannot  be  called  religious  principle. 
I'erhaps,  if  one  denied  the  existence  of  a  Supreme  Being,  it 
might  in  a  pro])er  .sense  be  said  that  he  had  no  religions 
princii)les.  because  he  could  not  entertain  any  oi)iuion  touch- 
ing the  relations  between  God  and  man,  unless  a  denial  of 
any  such  relations  might  be  so  denominated.  But  to  a  per- 
son who  believes  in  the  existence  of  a  Supreme  Being  there 
pertain  necessarily,  or  at  least  probably,  some  views  with 
regard  to  the  relations  between  him  and  ns,  which  modify 
the  life  of  the  individual.  The  mere  fact  that  in  those  rela- 
tions he  has  discovered  no  divine  purpose  of  punishment 
for  specific  acts  does  not  militate  against  his  possession  of 
religious  i)rinci])les  and  among  them  are  his  belief,  his  dis- 
belief, and  his  doubt  concerning  those  relations.  State  v 
IV)wers,  51  N.  J.  L.  4:52. 

Limits  of  Inquiry.  No  civil  tiibuii;il  has  the  i-ight  to  en- 
force a  creed  or  system  of  doctiine  or  belief  on  any  man,  or 
to  re(piire  him  to  assent  to  any  i)rescribed  system  of  doi- 
trine,  or  to  search  out  his  belief  for  tlie  i)ur])ose  of  restrain- 
ing or  punishing  it  in  any  teuii)<)ral  tribunal ;  but  such  a  tri- 
bunal has  a  right  to  ascertain  by  competent  evidence,  what 
are  the  religious  princij)les  of  any  man  or  set  of  men,  when, 
as  may  fretpiently  be  the  case,  civil  rights  are  thereon  to 
depend,  or  thereby  to  be  decided.  Heudrickson  v  Decow, 
1  Saxton,  (N.  J.)  577. 

627 


RELIGIOUS  SOCIETIES 

Building  committee,  629. 

By-laws,  629. 

Chiingc  of  denominational  relations,  630. 

Change  of  doctrine,  effect,  630. 

ChapeLs,  630. 

Committee,  defense  in  legal  proceedings,  631. 

Congregation  and  corporation,  distinction,  631. 

Congregational,  632. 

Congregational,  divi.sion,  effect,  632. 

Connectional  relations,  633. 

Consolidation,  633. 

Constitution,  634. 

Contract,  634. 

Conveyance,  presumption,  634. 

Debts,  634. 

Debts,  when  successor  not  liable  for,  634. 

Defined,  635. 

Devise,  diversion,  635. 

Devise,  New  York  rule,  635. 

Dissolution,  636. 

Diversion  of  property,  636. 

Division,  effect  on  property,  636. 

Division,  minority's  right,  636. 

Doctrine  and  worship,  control,  637. 

Freedom  of  organization,  637. 

Illinois  rule,  637. 

Incorporation,  637. 

Incorporation,  certificate  seal,  637. 

Incorporation,  how  proved,  637. 

Incorporation  not  necessary,  638. 

Independent,  diversion  of  trust,  638. 

Individual  rights,  638. 

Joint  incorporation,  638. 

Liability,  638. 

Liability  of  members,  638. 

Majority,  powers,  639. 

Massachusetts  rule,  639. 

628 


K1:L1(J10US  societies  C29 

Meetings,  639. 

Meeting,  how  called,  639. 

Name,  639. 

New  York  act  of  1813,  640. 

Organization,  jjowers,  640. 

Property,  conveyance  to  members,  effect,  640. 

Property,  how  to  be  used,  641. 

Quorum,  641. 

Reincorporation,  identity,  641. 

Rules  of  order,  641. 

School  moneys,  sharing  in,  641. 

Secession,  642. 

Self-government,  642. 

Separation,  effect,  642. 

Separation  or  independence,  when  impossible,  642. 

Services,  society  may  regulate  admissions  and  conduct,  642. 

Subscriber's  right  to  prevent  diversion,  643. 

Threefold  aspect,  643. 

Two  societies,  one  minister,  643. 

Unincorporated,  status,  644. 

Union  with  another  denomination,  645. 

War  claim,  645. 

Who  constitute,  645. 

Withdrawal  from  synod,  effect,  645. 

Building  Committee.  Two  out  of  three  members  of  a  build- 
ing committee,  appointed  to  erect  a  church  edilice,  made  a 
contract  for  that  jiurpose,  in  which  thej'  were  described  as 
a  building  committee.  It  was  jield  that  the  two  menduTs 
of  the  committee  who  signed  the  contract  were  not  person- 
ally liable  thereon.  The  contract  created  an  obligation 
against  the  society,  ;m(l  not  against  the  individuals  wlio 
signed  as  the  building  coiiiiiiittee.  Ilewitl  v  Wlieclcr,  '22 
Conn.  557. 

By-Laws.  \N'lierever  religious  associations  h;ivi'  been  or- 
ganized to  assist  in  the  ex])ression  and  dissemination  of 
religious  doctrine,  and  have  created  lor  tlieir  direction  in 
matters  of  doctrine,  diurcli  government,  .md  discii)line,  tri- 
bunals within  (he  association,  the  final  and  controlling  elfect 
of  the  ecdesiasticnl  jjolity  tluis  formed  u])on  tlic  individuMl 
members  and  congregations  and  ollicers  within  the  gcnt'ial 


(;:!(»        Tin:  <"i\iL  LANV  A.\i>  Tin:  ciivmm 

iissociii  I  i<»ii  will  not  l»c  (|ii('st  ioiicd,  Itiil  will  Ix'  ^i\('ii  cllcct 
(((  ill  tln>  civil  courtH.  All  who  unite  theiiiHclvcs  to  sikIi  a 
hody  do  so  with  the  implied  consent  to  submit  to  the  system 
<»r  ('(■(•h'siiistical  control,  and  arc  hound  hy  it.  First  Presby- 
terian Chunh,  Perry  v  Myers,  5  Okl.  800. 

Change  of  Denominational  Relations.  In  Bellport  Parish  v 
Tookcr,  l!!)  Barb.  (X.  V.  i  iTid,  it  was  held  that  the  society 
could  chanp'  Ironi  a  Congregational  to  a  Presbyterian 
church. 

"Every  religious  society,  unless  restrained  by  some  special 
trust,  by  the  general  law  were  at  liberty  to  change  their 
denomination,  and  ])rofess  and  ])0ssibly  to  inculcate  any 
Christian  faith  or  doctrine,  and  adojjt  the  form  of  wor.shij) 
most  agreeable  to  themselves;  and  bj'  doing  so,  no  forfeiture 
could  be  incurred."  Attorney-General  v  Proprietors  of 
Mce1in<ihouse  in  Federal  Street,  ;^>  Gray  (Mass.)   1. 

Change  of  Doctrine,  Effect.  Where  the  constitution  of  a  reli- 
jjious  society  vests  the  j)Ower  to  make  or  repeal  any  rule 
of  disci|)line  in  the  General  Conference,  subject  to  the  re- 
striction that  no  rule  or  ordinance  shall  at  any  time  be 
])assed  to  change  or  do  away  with  the  existing  confession 
of  faith,  and  prohibits  any  alteration  of  the  constitution 
unless  by  the  request  of  two  thirds  of  the  whole  society,  and 
the  Conference,  without  such  request,  formulates  substan- 
tial changes  in  and  additions  to  The  confession  of  faith  and 
amendments  of  the  con.stitution,  and  on  a  vote  of  two 
thirds  of  the  members  of  the  society  voting,  but  not  of  the 
society,  declares  said  altered  confession  of  faith  and 
amended  con.stitution  adopted,  such  action  is  invalid,  and 
the  title  and  right  to  the  pos.session  of  the  real  estate  of 
the  society  is  in  that  part  thereof  which  is  acting  in  har- 
mony with  the  original  constitution  and  laws,  regardless  of 
its  numerical  strength.  Rear  v  Heasley,  OS  >rich.  270;  see 
the  article  on  United  Bi-ethren  in  Christ. 

Chapels,  (^hapels  founded  in  connection  with  a  congrega- 
tion or  ])arish  will  not  be  allowed  to  cut  loose  from  the 
church  under  who.se  care  and  au.spices  they  weie  established. 


RELIGIOUS  SOCIETIES  631 

and  carry  with  llicni  the  propeily  acquired,  in  i)art  or  in 
whole,  l).y  the  conlribiilion.s  of  the  mother  church  or  its 
members,  or  tliat  which  persons  not  connected  with  tlie 
organizations  may  have  given  for  its  support  as  an  adjunct 
to  the  parent  church.  Rector,  etc.,  Christ  Church  v  Rector, 
etc.,  Cliurch  of  the  Holy  Communion,  14  IMiihi.  (l*a.)  (51. 

Committee,  Defense  in  Legal  Proceedings.  In  llarbison  v 
First  Tresbyterian  Society,  40  Conn.  529,  it  was  held  that 
a  committee  of  an  ecclesiastical  society  has  ]»ower  to  defend 
at  the  cost  of  the  so<-iety  against  legal  ]»ro(eedings  endan- 
gering either  the  existence  of  the  corporation  or  its  rights  or 
property.  It  may  thus  defend  against  a  petition  for  an 
injunction  forbidding  the  sale  of  its  pews.  But  such  a  com- 
mittee has  no  power  to  defend  at  the  cost  of  the  society 
against  legal  proceedings  which  affect  only  themselves  per- 
sonally in  their  character  as  a  committee.  It  may  not  so 
defend  against  jjroceedings  to  test  the  question  whether  the 
committee  has  been  legally  elected. 

Congregation  and  Corporation,  Distinction.  The  members 
of  the  society  or  congregation  form  the  corporate  body, 
such  members  being  the  cor])orators,  and  the  trustees  are 
mere  officers  of  the  cori)oration.  The  body  or  entity  thus 
brought  into  existence  is  a  civil  corporation  with  such  func- 
tions and  j)owers  as  the  statute  confers  upon  it  and  its 
officers,  and  in  no  sense  is  it  an  ecclesiastical  corporation. 
It  is  wholly  indei)endent  in  its  existence,  an<l  in  the  control 
and  management  of  its  affairs,  of  all  religious  judicatories; 
it  is  a  creature  of  the  State,  subject  to  such  control  as  its 
own  laws  may  impose;  and  none  of  the  provisions  of  the  act 
are  intended  to  disturb,  interfere  with,  or  regulate  the  ac- 
tions and  powers  of  the  numerous  voluntary  religious  or- 
ganizations which  exist  among  the  peojjle;  but  such  bodies 
are  recognized  as  existing,  and  are  considered  entirely  spir- 
itual associations,  distinct  and  separate  from  the  bo<ly 
politic.  Thus,  in  mere  membershij)  the  same  persons  may 
be  a  religious  sitciety,  holding  to  pe<'uliar  religious  notions, 
having  their  own  cree<ls  and   forms  of  worship,  and  at   the 


(i:\'2        Tin;  ri\iL  i,.\w  a.\i>  thk  (miiuw 

siimc  liiiic  Itc  iiicriihcrs  ol  llic  corixtiMlc  hody  tlic  <(trj)()- 
rwlors  willi  rij;lils.  |»ri\  ilc^^cs,  jiid  inlcicsls  wliitli  conic  f'l-oiii 
thill  i-cl;il  ion.  Tlic  ;icls  ol  IMI;"),  cliai).  71),  iind  isHJ,  cliap. 
I7(>,  r('(|nirin<i;  lli«'  Inistccs  to  iidniiiiislci-  the  property  ac- 
coidiii;;'  to  the  rnh's  and  |)isci|dine  of  tlie  (h-iioniination, 
and  prohibit in<;'  a  divei-sion  of  the  pro|iei-ty,  did  not  aflect 
the  natni'e  of  the  tith'  vested  in  the  corpoi-ation,  hnt  tliey 
ndated  wliolly  to  tlie  offlcors  of  tlie  corporation.  The  chuich 
or  con^rej;at ion  to  whieli  the  coiiioration  l>elon^s  is  always 
a  (piestion  of  fact  to  he  deterinined  from  tlie  testimony 
which  may  be  preseuted  in  a  particnlar  ca.se.  Isham  v  Fidl- 
agcr,  14  Al)l).  N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  '^(u^. 

Congregational.  A  congregational  society  is  generally 
made  up  first  of  the  church  and  next  of  those  who  worship 
with  the  clnii-cli  and  favor  the  same  views,  and  wlio  assist  in 
snpixM-ting  the  preaching  and  pnldic  worship  of  that  church. 
The  society,  as  snch,  often,  ]>erhaps  generally,  has  no  creed 
or  i)ublished  religions  opinions  distinct  from  the  church; 
the  church  is  the  basis  of  the  whole.  This  is  true  in  the 
Congregational  societies  in  tliis  country,  generally,  whether 
ortliodox  or  T^nitai'ian.  The  ministers  are  generally  settled 
by  the  society,  but  they  become  pastors  of  the  chnrch  as  well 
as  of  the  society;  and  the  creed  or  belief  of  the  society  is 
not  to  be  sought  in  the  constitution  or  by-laws,  but  in  the 
creed  or  belief  of  the  church  with  \\liich  sai<l  society  is  con- 
nected.   Hale  V  Everett,  5.?  X.  II.  1. 

Congregational,  Division,  Effect.  If  the  princij)le  of  govern- 
ment in  snch  cases  is  that  the  majority  rnles,  then  the 
numei-ical  majority  of  members  mnst  control  the  right  to 
the  use  of  the  property.  If  there  be  within  the  congrega- 
tion officers  in  whom  are  vested  the  ])owers  of  such  control, 
then  those  who  adhere  to  the  acknowledged  organism  by 
which  the  body  is  governed  are  entitled  to  the  use  of  the 
pro])erty.  The  mimu-ity  in  choosing  to  separate  themselves 
into  a  distinct  body,  and  refusing  to  recognize  the  authority 
of  the  goviM-ning  body,  can  claim  no  rights  in  the  property 
from    the   fact    that    thev   had   once  been    mend)ers   of   the 


RELIGIOUS  SOCIIOTIKS  633 

church  or  coii^i-cgatioii.  This  niliiig  admits  of  no  iii(j[uify 
into  the  existing  religious  opinions  of  tiiose  who  comprise 
the  legal  or  regular  organization ;  for,  if  such  were  jx-r- 
luitted,  a  very  small  minority,  without  any  olhcers  of  the 
churcli  among  them,  might  be  found  to  be  the  only  faithful 
supporters  of  the  religious  dogmas  of  the  founders  of  the 
church.  There  being  no  such  trust  imposed  ujjon  the  prop- 
erty w  Iicn  jMiichased  or  given,  the  court  will  not  imply  one 
for  the  purpose  of  ex])elling  from  its  use  those  who  by  regu- 
lar succession  and  order  constitute  the  church,  because 
they  may  have  changed  in  some  respect  their  views  of  reli- 
gious tiutli.     Watson  V  Jones,  13  Wall.  (U.  S. )  ('.70. 

Connectional  Relations.  The  American  Trimitive  Meth- 
odist Society,  located  at  Paterson,  New  Jersey,  was  not 
congregatioual  in  its  form  of  government,  but  was  affiliated 
with  the  Annual  Conference  of  the  Primitive  Methodist 
Church.  The  local  (hui-ch  had  no  v.rilleu  constitution,  and 
none  was  needed  to  establish  its  connection  with  the  gen- 
eral church.  American  Primitive  Society  v  Pilling,  -1  Zab. 
(N.  J.)   633. 

Consolidation.  Corporations  cannot  consolidate  without 
legislative  authority.  An  agreement  of  consolidation  signe(l 
by  the  presidents  of  two  corporations,  incorporated  under 
different  acts,  one,  i-eligious,  organized  under  2  K.  L.  1813, 
chap.  60,  and  the  other  benevolent,  organized  under  laws  of 
1848,  chap.  319,  and  also  signed  by  the  secretary  of  the 
alleged  consolidated  corjtoi'ation,  there  being  no  assent  of 
the  supreme  court  to  the  consolidation,  nor  any  conlirma- 
tion  by  the  trustees  of  one  of  the  c()T])oi'ations,  is  of  no 
effect,  and  the  corporations  remain  in  being.  Chevr.i  P.nai 
Israel  Aushe  Vanove  und  Motal  v  Chevra  Bikur  Ciiolim 
Aushe  Rodof  Sholem,  24  Misc.  (N.  Y. )   180. 

The  X.  Y.  act  of  IS":*  chaj).  176,  which  among  other  things 
authorized  the  consolidation  of  two  or  more  religions  so- 
cieties or  corporations  Itelonging  to  the  same  clinnh  or  de- 
nomination did  not  ])ermit  the  consolidation  of  two  corpct- 
rations.  one  of  which  was  Presbvlerian  and  the  other  umle- 


(i:ti        r\]\:  cixii.  law  ani>  tiii;  cm  ncii 

ii()iiiin:iti()ii:il.  Sl(»l<cs  v  riicljis  .Missi(»ii,  17  lliiii  (  N.  \.) 
HTO ;  scr  ;ilso  Kc  MctlKnlist  lljiiscctp;!!  Socicly  v  TciTy,  HI 
Ilim   (N.  V.)    1(11. 

Constitution.  A  (••tiislit  ulictii  l'<»i-  ;i  voliiiitiifv  society  may 
he  |tr(»p('i-.  ;is  :im  ()i-<;;miz;it  ion.  hut  it  has  none  of  tlie  pow- 
ers or  i-('(|nisites  ol'  a  const  itnt  ion  in  jiolilical  l»o<li(*s,  wliicli 
cnianah's  li-oni  a  liij^licr  power  llian  llie  Lej^islatnre.  and 
always  is  sn|»|»os<'(l  lo  l»e  enacted  liy  a  power  sujterior  to 
tlie  Lejfislatnre,  and  is  nnclian^cahle  (.\c<')it  hy  the  body 
wliicli  estaldislied  it;  but  that  body  can  chanjic  it  at  jtleas- 
ure.     Smith  v  \«ds(»n.   IS  \'t.  ."ill. 

Contract.  The  society  was  nnim oi'porated.  In  New  Khen- 
ezer  Association  v  (ii'css  Lnmlier  Company,  81)  (la.  125,  it 
was  held  that  with  a  hnildinjjf  committee  of  tlie  society, 
consist in<;  of  tive  mendteis.  anthority  to  make  hindinj; 
conti'acts  in  behalf  of  the  connnittee  would  have  to  be  exer- 
cised by  a  majority  of  the  members,  either  directly  or  by 
(hdejiatiii^-  the  i)ower  to  a  less  lunnber.  One  member  alone 
could  not  contract  witluuit  being  authorized  so  to  do  by  a 
majority. 

Conveyance,  Presumption.  Where  real  estate  is  conveyed 
to  trustees  in  trust  for  the  use  of  a  church  or  congregation, 
as  a  place  of  worshiji,  which  church  or  congregation  is  after- 
ward incorjtoraled,  the  court,  after  a  great  lapse  of  time, 
will  j)resume  a  conveyance  from  the  original  trustees,  or 
their  heirs,  to  the  corporation.  Dutch  Church  in  Garden 
St.  V  Mott,  7  Paige  Ch.  (X.  Y.)  77. 

Debts.  Dissenters  are  held  liable  for  debts  of  the  society 
contracted  before  they  withdraw.  Hosford,  etc.  v  Lord.  1 
Koot    (Conn.)   lV2y>. 

Debts,  When  Successor  Not  Liable  For.  The  disbandment 
of  an  incorporated  religious  societj'  following  a  sale  of  its 
jiroperty  on  foreclosure,  and  the  incorporation  of  a  new 
society  composed  in  part  of  the  same  persons,  and  the  pur- 
chase of  the  church  property  by  the  new  corporation  from 
the  purchaser  on  the  foreclosure  sale,  does  not  make  the  new 
cor])oration   liable  for  the  debts  of   the  first   corporation. 


RELIGIOUS  SOCIETIES  635 

Allen   V   North    I)es  Moines  Methodist    lOpiscopal    ( 'lunch, 
127  la.  90. 

Defined.  A  religious  society  or  congregation,  as  recog- 
nized by  the  New  York  religious  corporations  law,  is  what 
is  usually  denominated  a  poll  i)arisli  in  some  of  the  neighbor- 
ing States.  It  consists  of  a  volnntarj'  association  of  indi- 
viduals or  families,  united  for  the  i)urpose  of  liaving  a  com- 
mon place  of  worship,  and  to  provide  a  proper  teacher  to 
instruct  them  in  religious  doctrines  and  duties,  and  to  ad- 
minister the  ordinance  of  baptism.  Althougli  a  churcli,  or 
body  of  professing  Christians,  is  almost  unifonnly  ton- 
nected  with  such  a  society  or  congregation,  tlie  mend)ers  of 
the  church  have  no  other  or  greater  rights  tlian  any  other 
members  of  the  society  who  statedly  attend  with  them  for 
the  j)urposes  of  divine  worship.  Baptist  Church,  Hartford 
v  Witherell,  :i  Paige  (^h.  (N.  Y.)  21)0. 

Religious  societies  of  sects  and  denominations  are  foundcti 
for  the  purpose  of  uniting  together  in  public  religious  w<)r- 
shij)  and  religious  services,  according  it)  the  custoniai-y,  ha- 
bitual, or  systematic  forms  of  the  particular  sect  or  de- 
nomination, and  in  accordance  with,  and  to  ])romote  and 
enforce  their  common  faith  and  belief.  There  cannot  be  a 
sect  or  denomination  of  religious  peisons  without  any  com- 
mon religious  belief.  State  v  Trustees,  7  Ohio  St.  58,  hold- 
ing that  a  library  association  was  not  entitled  to  share  in 
the  proceeds  of  the  rent  of  jniblic  land  set  apart  by  the  state 
to  aid  religious  denominations. 

Devise,  Diversion.  \\'here  i)roperty  was  <levised  to  a  i-eli- 
gious  society  for  the  ]Mir]»ose  of  maintaining  a  Iri'e  school  in 
a  specified  district  it  was  held  tliat  an  agreement  by  the 
society  to  divei-t  tliis  fund  fi'oni  tlie  (►bject  for  wiii(  h  it  was 
given  and  apply  it  to  the  .supi)ort  of  the  minisiiy  was  void, 
being  a  fraud  ujjou  this  puri>ose.  Bailey  v  Lewis.  ;'►  I  >ay 
(Conn.)   450. 

Devise,  New  York  Rule.  The  New  York  religious  coipoia- 
tions  act  of  17S4  did  not  authorize  a  i-eligions  coiporaiion 
to  take  by  <levise,  nor  was  this  power  exteMih'd  by  the  Ke- 


(;;;(;        'iiii:  cin  IL  law   am»  'I'IIi;  cmi  i:rii 

\is('(|  Stahitcs.  Siicli  ;i  <l('\is('  to  ;i  coiiior.i  I  ion  ciiniiot  he 
snsi;iiii(Ml  ;is  a  (Iiai'iliihlc  use.  Ayrcs  \  TniHteeK,  Meth- 
odist lOpiscopJil  <1iiii-(li,  New  "N'oi-k,  ."'.  Saiidf.  Sup.  C(.  (  N.  V.  i 

Dissolution.  Xo  iiieetiiif;  of  tlic  I)oai<l  of  trustees  was  neces- 
sary to  authorize  ;i  iiiiijority  to  make  iiii  ;i]iplieat i(*ii  for  the 
dissolution  of  the  society  inider  the  act  of  isTl',  chap.  42i. 
Matter  of  Third  Methodist  Episcoi)al  CIiiii(h.  Brooklyn, 
i\7  TIuu  (N.  Y.I  S(i. 

The  court  declined  to  direct  a  dissolntion  of  a  corpora- 
tion known  as  the  IMoprietoi-s  of  tlie  New  South  Meeting 
House  in  Boston  a.uainst  tlie  ])rotest  of  a  minority  of  the 
mendters.  Ke  New  Soutli  Meeting  House,  Boston,  K?  Allen 
(Mass.)  407. 

Diversion  of  Property.  It  is  not  in  the  i)ower  of  a  majority 
of  a  denomination  or  congrej^ation,  however  large  the  major- 
ity may  be,  by  reason  of  a  change  of  religious  views,  to 
carry  its  ])roperty  to  a  new  and  ditt'erent  doctrine.  Smith 
et  al  V  I'edigo  et  al  145  Ind.  :'>(»1,  302.  See  also  to  same  ellect 
Mt.  Zion  Bai)ti.st  Ch.  v  Whit  more,  83  Iowa  138. 

Division,  Effect  on  Property.  Tlie  title  to  the  church  ])rop- 
erty  of  a  congregation  that  is  divided  is  in  that  part  of  the 
congregation  that  is  in  harmony  with  its  own  laws,  usages, 
and  customs  as  acce])ted  by  the  body  before  the  division  took 
place,  and  who  adhere  to  the  regular  organization. 

In  such  a  case  it  does  not  matter  that  a  majority  of  any 
given  congregation  or  Anniuil  Conference  is  with  those  wlio 
dissent.  The  power  of  the  majority,  as  well  as  that  of  the 
minority,  is  bound  by  the  Discipline,  and  so  are  all  the  tri- 
bunals of  the  church  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest. 

Upon  the  questions  arising  under  the  Discipline,  as  upon 
those  arising  under  the  articles  of  faith,  the  decisions  of 
the  ecclesiastical  body  are  ordinarily  linal,  and  they  will 
be  respected  and  enforced  by  the  courts  of  law.  Krecker  v 
Shirey,  163  Pa.  St.  534. 

Division.  Minority's  Right.  An  adhering  minoritv'  of  a 
local  or  territorial  parish,  and  not  a  seceding  nmjority,  con- 


RELIGIOUS  SOCIETIES  637 

stitutes   till"   cliuicli   of   such    i)ai-isli    to   all   civil    puritoses. 
Stebbiiis  v  .J('iiniii<4s,  10  Tick.  (Mass.j   ]71. 

Doctrine  and  Worship,  Control.  A  religious  society  own- 
ing a  meetinghouse  may  decide,  without  interference  from 
the  jjew-owners,  what  doctrines  shall  be  preached  in  their 
house,  and  what  religious  teachers  shall  be  emplojed  to 
preach  them.  Trinitarian  Congregational  Society,  F'rauces- 
town  V  Union  Congregational  Society,  Francestown,  (il 
N.  H.  384. 

Freedom  of  Organization.  Keligious  societies  are  not  free 
if  they  may  not  choose  their  own  form  of  organization.  They 
may  organize  as  indei>endent  churches,  and  then  their  law 
is  found  in  their  own  separate  institutions,  customary  and 
written.  Or  they  may  organize  as  associated  churches,  and 
then  their  law  is  to  be  found  in  their  own  rules,  and  in 
those  of  the  associated  organisms.  McGinnis  v  Watson,  41 
Pa.  St.  i). 

Illinois  Rule.  The  incorporated  religious  societies  are  not 
to  be  classified  with  ecclesiastical  corporations,  as  known 
to  the  English  laws,  which  were  composed  entirely  of  eccle- 
siastical persons  and  subject  to  ecclesiastical  judicatories, 
but,  rather,  with  civil  cor})orations,  to  be  controlled  and 
managed  under  the  general  principles  of  law  applicable  to 
such  corporations,  as  administered  by  the  civil  courts.  Cal 
kins  V  Cheney,  92  111.  4(53,  Robertson  v  Bullions,  11  X.  V. 
243. 

Incorporation.  A  substantial  compliance  with  the  reijuire- 
ments  of  the  statute  relating  to  incorporation  is  sufticient, 
and  an  error  in  recording  the  papers  will  not  prevent  the 
incorporation  from  taking  effect.  Matter  of  Arden,  20  St. 
Rep.  (N.  Y.)  805. 

Incorporation,  Certificate  Seal.  In  Trustees  St.  .Jacob's 
Lutheran  Church,  73  N.  Y.  323,  the  incorporation  of  the 
society  was  sustained  notwithstanding  the  absence  of  seals 
on  the  certificate  as  recorde<l,  it  appcai-ing  that  seals  were 
affixed  when  the  certilicate  was  execute*!. 

Incorporation,  How  Proved.     Tlie  necessai-y  certilicate  of 


«;:5s        Till-:  ('i\iL  LAW  AM)  tup:  cmiicii 

iii(()i|M)r;il  i(»ii  hciii;;  lost,  I  lir  i  iicor|M»r;i  I  i«»ii  \\;is  |)criiiil  tcl 
(o  lie  proviMl  hy  ii  cfrl ificd  copy  of  the  vcr<n(\  oj'  the  iiicor- 
|)or;ilioii.  Sccoiul  McllMMlisf  l']|»iscop;il  (Mnircli  of  (Jt-cimi- 
wiili  V  Iliimplircv,  II)  St.  Uv\k  Mil. 

Incorporation  Not  Necessary.  "A  cliurdi  or  i-j'lijfious  so- 
ciety niiiy  exist  for  nil  the  piu-poscs  foi*  vliicli  it  w;is  or^^nii- 
ized  iiulepeiidently  of  any  incorporation  of  tlic  body  under 
the  statutes  of  the  State."    Hundley  v  Collins,  V.'A  Ala.  234. 

Independent.  Diversion  of  Trust.  If  the  trust  is  confide<l 
to  a  religious  coii<;regatioii  of  the  inde])endent  or  coiif^re- 
gatioiial  form  of  government,  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  the 
majority  of  that  congi-egatifui,  however  ju-eponderant,  hy 
reason  of  a  change  of  views  on  religious  subjects,  to  carry 
the  property  so  confided  to  them  to  the  support  of  new  and 
conflicting  doctrine.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  courts  in  such 
cases,  wheu  the  doctrine  to  be  taught  or  the  form  of  wor- 
ship to  be  used  is  definitely  and  clearly  laid  down,  to  inquire 
whether  the  ])arty  accused  of  violating  the  trust  is  holding 
or  teaching  a  ditl'erent  doctrine,  or  using  a  form  of  worship 
which  is  so  far  variant  as  to  defeat  the  declared  objects  of 
the  trust.     Watson  v  Jones,  VA  Wall.   (U.  S.  i   (IT!). 

Individual  Rights.  A  collection  of  individuals  as  a  church 
acquiring  rights  as  a  church  and  .subsequently  dissolving, 
have  no  indivi<lual  rights  growing  out  of  the  formal  organ- 
ization.    Berryman  v  Reese.  11  B.  Mon.  (Ky. )  287. 

Joint  Incorporation.  The  Maryland  act  of  1802,  chap.  111. 
authorizing  th(»  incorporation  of  churches,  is  not  to  be  re- 
stricted to  individual  churches  or  societies  singly,  but  two 
different  denominations  may  unite  and  form  one  society  or 
congregation  within  the  meaning  of  the  act.  Neale  v  Vestry 
of  tSt.  Paul's  (Miurch,  8  (Jill.  (Md.i   IKJ. 

Liability.  In  Gray  v  Good,  44  Ind.  Ap]).  (\  Kep.  470,  it 
was  held  that  religious  societies,  whose  trustees  were  incor- 
porated, were  liable,  as  .such,  only  for  the  acts  of  such 
trustees. 

Liability  of  Members.  All  members  of  an  ecclesiastical 
society  without    loial  limits,  formed  bv  voluntarv  associa- 


RELIGIOUS  SOCIETIES  639 

tion,  pursuant  to  section  lo  of  the  Connecticut  statute  relat- 
ing to  religious  societies,  are  not  individually  liable  for  the 
debts  of  such  society.    Jewett  v  Thames  Bank,  10  Conn,  511. 

Majority,  Powers.  The  majority  may  direct  and  control 
consistently  with  the  particular  and  general  laws  of  the 
organism,  but  not  in  violation  of  them.  Sutter  v  Trustees 
First  Kelormed  Dutch  Cluirch,  42  I'a.  .">():;. 

Keligious  societies  acting  as  corporate  bodies  under  the 
siiilute,  must  be  governed  by  majorities,  and  llie  minority 
must  submit  or  secede.  This  rule  must,  in  tlie  nature  of 
things,  ai)ply  iu  all  temporal  atfairs,  but  difference  iu  faith 
or  doctrine  may  l)e  determined  on  different  principles. 
Miller  v  English,  21  N.  J.  Law,  :517. 

The  will  of  a  majority  wlicn  known  iind  duly  expressed 
must  conclude  unless  so  jjalpably  unjust  as  clearlj^  to  indi- 
cate an  arbitrai-y,  wanton,  and  desti-uctive  purpose,  '^t  is 
the  right  of  a  majority  to  control  in  all  civil  affairs,  and  no 
less  in  the  management  of  the  temjjoralities  of  a  religious 
society  than  any  other."  Cooper  v  Presby.  Church  of  Sandy 
Hill,  32  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  222. 

Massachusetts  Rule.  A  religious  society  is  not  a  private 
corporation  under  the  Massachusetts  act  of  1852.  chap.  312, 
sec.  42,  relative  to  the  improper  or  illegal  use  of  a  franchise. 
Goddard  v  Smithett,  3  Gray  (Mass.)  IK;. 

Meetings.  If  a  society  vote  to  hold  their  annual  meetings 
upon  a  certain  day  in  each  succeeding  year,  a  meeting  held 
on  a  day  so  fixed,  without  fui-ther  notice,  is  not  legal,  even 
after  a  practice  of  holding  them  thus  for  fifty  years.  Hl- 
cock  V  Hoskine,  4  Day's  Kej).  (Conn.)  (».{. 

Meeting,  How  Called.  If  the  charter  does  not  i)rovide  a 
jtlan  for  calling  meetings  of  the  society  for  the  election  of 
trustees,  such  a  meeting  may  be  called  by  a  justice  of  the 
peace  on  the  ajjplication  of  live  nuMubers  of  the  society. 
Ladd  V  Clements,  1  Cush.   (Mass.)    \H\. 

Name.  In  rennsylvania  it  was  lichl  llial  a  pioceeding  t»> 
change  the  name  of  a  religious  corporation  could  not  be  en- 
tertained by  the  court  without  notice  of  the  aiijdication  first 


(ill!        'riii:  ('i\  iL  I, AW  AM»  'iiii:  cnrKcii 

served  mi  tin-  ;i iiditor  ^'ciicial.  IJc  I"'irsl  I'lcsbyterian 
Clnircli.   I'.l< liclfl,   107   I'm.  SI.  51:5. 

Oi'dcr  «Ii;iii}iiiiji  iiiiiiic  iiijiy  l»'  revoked,  lie,  Ahyssiiiiini 
Ji;i|>lisl  (Mmicli,  1:5  X.  V.  Siij.p.  !»l!t. 

New  York  Act  of  1813.  A I  flu-  lime  of  llie  passage  of  this 
act  lliere  exisled  in  lliis  Stale  iniinei'oiis  deiioniiiiations 
oi'}:;aiiize(]  iiilo  voIniilai\v  associations,  eacli  distinct  and 
se|)arale  from  each  oilier,  <]ill'eiinjf  in  failli,  doctiine,  usage, 
and  discipline,  all  independent,  beiii^  enliindy  free  fi-oni 
Slate  intei  t'erence  and  conti-ol.  This  was  the  situation 
fiom  the  early  selth'meiit  of  the  count ly.  None  of  these 
icli^ious  hodies  pos.sessejl  any  of  the  cai»acities.  attrihutes, 
and"  rights  of  a  corj>orate  body.  In  the  law  they  liad  uo 
legal  existence.  Tliey  were  regarded  as  s]»i ritual  organ- 
izations, many  of  them  end)racing  within  their  aims  and 
purposes  other  objects,  such  as  sui)i>oiting  schools  and  col- 
leges, founding  charities.  After  the  formation  of  the  cor- 
j)oratioii  the  s]>iritual  body  remains,  which  is  composed  of 
the  church  members.  The  corporation  entity  deals  with  the 
temporalities  of  the  society  only.      Isham   v   FuUager,   14 

Abb.  N.  r.  (N.  Y.  I  :i(;:;. 

Organization,  Powers.  Where  persons  formed  themselves 
in  an  association  for  religious  jiurposes,  without  any  lay 
organization,  under  the  Massachusetts  statutes  or  other- 
wise, l»ut  solely  under  the  advice  and  direction  of  the  min- 
isters and  elders  of  their  denomination,  and  entered  into 
an  agreement  which  they  afterward  fulfilled,  to  support 
and  nuiintain  public  worship,  became  a  religious  society 
under  the  statute,  and  became  competent  as  such  to  take 
grants  or  donations,  and  to  prosecute  an  action  of  tres- 
pass to  maintain  and  defend  the  possession  of  real  estate 
granted  or  leased  to  them  for  their  use  as  a  religious  society. 
Christian  Society  IMymouth  v  Macomber,  5  Mete.  (Mass.) 
155. 

Property,  Conveyance  to  Members,  Effect.  In  Pennsylvania 
it  was  held  that  religious  societies  were  in  the  nature  of 
corjttu-ations,  and  that  a  grant  to  the  members  of  such  a 


liELIGIOU«  {SOCIETIES  641 

society,  where  the  purpose  is  to  pioniote  the  charity  lor 
which  the  society  Wtis  organized,  is  a  grant  to  the  society 
itself.    Brown  v  Lutheran  Church,  2'^  I'a.  St.  495. 

Property,  How  to  Be  Used.  An  incorporated  society  must 
appropriate  its  jiroperty  tor  the  payment  of  their  debts; 
and  if  they  neglect  to  do  so,  and  permit  the  pro]»erty  to  be 
wasted,  the  individual  members  may  be  liable.  A  meeting- 
house is  not  liable  to  be  taken  in  execution  for  the  debts  of 
such  society.  Bigelow  v  Congregational  Society.  Middle- 
town,  11  Vt.  283. 

Quorum.  The  rule  of  the  common  law  is  where  a  society 
or  corporation  are  composed  of  an  indetinite  number  of  per- 
sons, a  majority  of  those  who  ai)pear  at  a  regular  meeting 
of  the  same  constitute  a  body  comj»etent  to  transact  business. 
Field  V  Field,  0  Wend.  (N.  Y.  l  IVM,  in  which  the  rnle  is 
applied  to  a  meeting  of  members  of  a  local  Society  of 
Friends. 

Reincorporation,  Identity.  Tlie  society  was  iiu<>rpora(e'l 
in  18oS  under  (he  iieligions  Corporations  A(  t  of  1S1:».  it 
was  reincorporated  in  1851  under  the  same  act.  The  earlier 
society  had  become  ])ractically  dissolved  by  failure  to  elci  t 
trustees.  The  surviving  mend)ers  reincorporated  uiit](  r 
another  name.  It  was  held  that  this  would  not  allect  the 
identity  of  the  society,  it  appearing  that  the  new  society  was 
the  same  as  the  one  which  was  incori)orated  in  IS.'JS.  The 
uew  society  Avas,  therefore,  entitled  to  the  [U'operty  owned 
by  the  original  society.  First  Society  v  Browiu'll,  5  I  Inn. 
(N.  Y.)  404. 

Eules  of  Order.  A  religions  society  may  prescribe  sucii 
rules  as  they  may  tiiiidc  jtroper  for  ])reserving  order  when 
met  for  public  worsliiji,  and  they  may  use  the  necessary 
force  to  remove  a  i)erson  who  is  disturbing  the  society  by  a 
willful  violation  of  a  ruh'.     McLain  v  Matlock,  7  hid.  .")■_'.". 

School  Moneys,  Sharing  In.  in  Connecticut  i(  w.is  liel<l 
that  all  the  religions  societies  located  within  the  paroclii;il 
limits  designated  {'ov  tlie  accnmnlMtion  and  distribution  of 
school  moneys,  were  llie  o\\  iiers  of  sudi  moneys,  and  entitled 


cij         riii;  (IN  II,  \..\\\  .\M>  'iiii;  <"iii  k<  ii 

to  piirl  iri|i;i(<'  in  llic  iiicuiiic  llicrror.  Ciirj^cl  v  ( Ii'osvriuH-. 
L'  |{(M»(    (( '<»nn.  I    \~>X. 

Secession.  Tlic  niMJority  of  tlic  iii<'Iii1)«ms  of  a  clinrcli  can- 
iiol.  Iiavin^i;  ahaiKloiM'd  llic  rcli;;;ions  failli  on  wliidi  it  \h 
f()UiHl<Ml,  hold  tlir  clmirli  |»ro]»(M-ty  ai;aiiist  llic  minority  ad- 
lM'rin<r  to  sncli  failli.  Tlic  title  to  tlu'  ]>roi>('rty  a((|niifd  by 
the  association  bcloi'c  tlic  existence  of  a  scliisni  will  remain 
ill  tliat  faction  of  the  association  wliicli  abides  hy  tlie  doc- 
ti'iiies,  principles,  and  i-nles  of  tlie  chui'ch  which  the  united 
body  professed  wImmi  the  ])i'opei-ty  was  a<(piired.  True  Ke- 
formed  Dutch  (Mi.  v  iserman.  (14  X.  J.  L.  50r) ;  see  article  on 
Sec<'ssion. 

Self-Government.  The  lueiubers  of  such  a  society,  in  the 
exercise  of  their  religious  liberty,  have  the  undoubted  right 
to  ado]>t  rules  for  their  own  chui-ch  government,  if  not 
inconsistent  with  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  land. 
Prickett  v  Wells,  1 17  Mo.  Rep.  502. 

Separation,  Effect.  It  is  a  well-settled  ])rinciple  that  when 
part  of  any  religious  association  separate  and  establish  a 
new  society  they  cease  to  be  members  of  the  original  society, 
and  have  no  longer  claim  to  their  property.  Trustees  Asso- 
ciate Ref.  Ch.  V  Trustees,  Theological  Seminary  4  N.  J.  Eq. 
77. 

Separation  or  Independence.  When  Impossible.  Whenever  a 
church  oi"  religious  society  has  been  originally  endowed  in 
connectiou  with,  or  subordination  to.  some  ecclesiastical 
organization  aiid  form  of  church  government,  it  can  no 
more  unite  with  some  other  organization  or  become  inde- 
pendent than  it  can  renounce  its  faith  or  doctrine  and 
adopt  others.  Indeed,  in  many  churches,  its  ecclesiasticism. 
or  form  of  church  g(nernment,  is  an  im]>ortant,  if  not  a 
fundamental,  i>oint  of  doctrine.  It  is  based,  in  their  view, 
ui>on  a  scriptural  model  or  teaching.  Roshi's  App.  09  Pa. 
4(52. 

Services,  Society  May  Regulate  Admissions  and  Conduct. 
While  it  is  usual  in  all  Christian  societies  and  places  of 
]iublic  w(n'shi)>  that  all  persons   who  choose  may  in   fact 


RELIGIOUS  SOCIETIES  G43 

attend,  aud  it  is  usual  to  set  apart  free  seats,  this  is  a 
matter  of  courtesy  aud  uot  of  right.  On  the  contrary,  any 
religious  society,  unless  formed  under  some  unusual  terms, 
may  withhold  this  courtesy,  and  close  their  doors,  or  admit 
whom  they  choose  only;  and  circumstances  may  be  easily 
imagined  in  which  it  would  be  necessary  to  their  peace  and 
order  that  they  should  exercise  such  right.  Attorney-Gen- 
eral V  I*roprietors  of  Meeting  House  in  Federal  Street, 
Boston,  o  Gray,  (Mass.)  1. 

Subscriber's  Right  to  Prevent  Diversion.  AVhere  a  person 
who,  in  pursuance  of  an  agreemeut  set  forth  in  the  subsirip- 
tion  list,  has  furnished  funds  to  ai<l  in  the  construction  of 
a  building  for  a  public  purpose,  and  which  funds  have  been 
applied  to  that  ])uri)ose,  he  has  a  right  to  insist  that  such 
building  shall  not,  without  good  cause,  be  converted  to  other 
uses ;  and  he  may  maintain  an  action  either  in  his  own  name, 
or  on  behalf  of  all  the  subscribers  to  prevent  a  violation  of 
the  contract.  In  this  case  the  contributions  were  made  for 
the  erection  of  a  church  to  be  used  by  the  Baptist  Society, 
and  it  was  also  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  having  lectures 
and  concerts  of  a  religious  nature.  It  was  held  that  the 
society  could  not,  without  the  consent  of  the  contributors, 
sell  the  proi)erty  for  mercantile  jturposes  without  any  inten- 
tion to  erect  another  church  editice.  Avery  v  Baker,  27 
Neb.  388. 

Threefold  Aspect.  First.  The  congregation  that  usually 
meets  together  for  religious  worship  and  instruction. 
Second.  The  church,  strictly  so  called,  composed  of  those 
entitled  to  full  church  privileges.  Tliird.  The  trustees  or 
corporation.  Worrell  v  First  Presbyterian  Church,  'S.\  N.  J. 
l':q.  96. 

Two  Societies,  One  Minister.  It  is  not  iUegal  for  two  reli- 
gious corjyorations  to  unite  in  the  settlement  ol  a  minister 
if  they  agree  to  worship  together;  and  the  circnnistance  that 
one  of  the  corjioi-at i<tns  is  in  an  adjoining  State  makes  no 
dilference.  IVckhani  v  North  Parish,  Haverhill,  1(J  Pick. 
(Mass.)  274. 


lil  I  'llli:  ('l\  II.   LAW   AND  Tin;  (III   |;r|i 

Unincorporated,  Status.  In  .M;i;^ill  \  llidun.  I'cil.  ('as.  No. 
S,I>r)li  (V.  S.  Cir.  CI.  I'a.)  (  I5ii;i!il l.v  N.  I'.  :;I7),  Jiid^'e  Bald- 
win oxjircsscd  tlic  ojdiiion  lliat  in  reiinsylviiniii  there  was 
no  decision  that  an  iricorpoi-ation  is  necessary  to  give  to 
any  association  of  individnals  the  capacity  of  taking  and 
enjoyinj;  an  estate  in  perjielnity,  either  by  the  assnnied  name 
of  the  society  or  hy  trnstees  for  tlieir  use.  Neither  is  there 
an  adjudged  case  turning'  on  the  statutes  of  mortmain  by 
whidi  any  estate  has  ever  been  vested  in  the  commonwealth 
by  a  forfeiture  incurred  in  consequence  of  an  alienation  to 
a  corporate  body,  without  license,  charter,  or  law,  or  any 
evidence  that  such  license  was  ever  granted  by  the  pro- 
prietor or  governor.  The  view  which  we  feel  constrained 
to  take  of  the  constitutions  of  1701,  1776,  and  1790,  all  of 
which  remain  in  force  so  far  as  respects  the  rights  of  prop- 
erty, conscience,  and  religious  worship,  is  this:  that  all 
bodies  imited  for  religious,  charitable,  or  literary  purposes, 
though  without  a  written  charter  or  law,  are  to  be  consid- 
ered as  corporations  by  prescription,  or  the  usage  and  com- 
mon law  of  the  State,  with  all  the  attributes  and  incidents 
of  such  corporations  by  the  principles  of  the  common  law, 
and  entitled  to  all  rights  which  are  conformable  to  the  cus- 
toms of  the  province.  Incorporations  were  almost  unknown, 
yet  to  all  sorts  of  pious  and  charitable  associations,  in  every 
part  of  the  province,  valuable  bequests  were  made  by  those 
who  were  ignorant  of  the  niceties  of  expression  necessary 
to  accomplish  the  object  at  common  law.  Nothing  was  more 
frequent  than  bequests  to  unincorporated  congregations, 
without  the  intervention  of  trustees;  and  even  when  there 
was  a  cor])oration  it  frequently  happened  that  the  corjjorate 
designation  was  mistaken,  or  the  trust  vaguely  defined,  not- 
withstanding which,  the  testator's  bounty  was  uniformly 
applied  to  the  object. 

In  Wilkins  v  Wardens,  etc.,  St.  :Mark's  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  52  Ga.  851,  it  was  held  that  a  religious  so- 
ciety which  was  not  incorjiorated  according  to  law,  or  which 
had  not  recorded  its  name  and  objects,  as  provided  by  the 


KELIGIOUS  SOCIETIES  G45 

Georgia  code,  could  not  be  sued  as  such,  but  that  its  mem- 
bers were  liable  on  its  contracts  as  joiut  promissors  or  part- 
ners. 

Union  with  Another  Denomination.  In  Sutter  v  Reformed 
Dutch  Church,  G  Wright  (Pa.)  50:^,  it  was  held  tliat  where 
a  congregation  of  one  denomination  forms  a  union  with  an- 
other belonging  to  a  different  denomination,  which  had  an 
established  form  of  church  government,  the  congregation  is 
bound  by  the  rules  of  the  denomination  which  it  has  joined, 
and  cannot  afterward  secede  therefrom  by  a  vote  of  the 
majority  of  its  members. 

War  Claim.  This  society  was  incorporated  in  lS(i2.  In  a 
proceeding  in  the  Federal  Court  of  Claims  to  recover  com- 
pensation for  property  alleged  to  have  been  lost  or  destroyed 
during  the  Civil  War,  it  was  held  that  the  society  was  organ- 
ized for  religious  puri)()ses,  and  that  it  had  not  given  aid  or 
comfort  to  the  rebellion.  The  society  was  held  entitled  to 
recover  from  the  United  States  the  value  of  the  property 
lost.  Hebrew  Congregation  Benai  Berith  Jacob  v  United 
States,  6  Ct.  CI.  (Ga.)  241. 

Who  Constitute.  According  to  the  legal  and  equitable 
principles  of  such  associations,  it  is  those  who  adhere  or 
submit  to  the  regular  order  of  the  church  local  and  general 
(even  though  they  be  a  minority),  that  constitute  the  true 
congregation,  and  also  the  true  corporation  if  it"  be  incor- 
porated.   Weinbrenncr  v  Colder,  7  Wright  (Pa.)  244. 

Withdrawal  from  Synod,  Effect.  The  Zion's  English  I'van- 
gelical  Lu(her;in  Coiigii'g;itioii  had  power  to  witiidraw  and 
did  withdraw  fi-oni  the  District  Synod  of  Oliio,  and  any 
action  by  the  synod,  subseciuent  to  such  withdrawal,  assum- 
ing to  suspend  the  minister  of  the  congregation,  A.  S. 
Bartholomew,  and  i)roviding  for  tilling  a  vacancy  in  the  ])\\\- 
pit,  was  void.  ^Icndjcrs  of  the  congi-egat  ion  not  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  >\itlidrawal  movement  aflciward  ludd  a  meet- 
ing and  assumed  to  amend  (he  ( 'oust  it  nt  ion  in  rclati(»n  to 
tlie  election  of  trustees  and  deilare  tlie  ollice  of  two  trns 
tees  who  had  joined  the  withdrawal  movement  vacant,  and 


ck; 


Tin:  ('i\iL  LAW  ANh  Tin:  ciii  kcii 


»'Ic<l<'(|  ullicfs  ill  llit'ii'  pl.iccs.  All  ;irti()ii  \\;is  liioiij^lit  liy  IIk; 
new  fiMislccs  ;ij;;iiiisl  tlic  oriiiiiinl  Inistccs.  :iii<l  llic  iiiiiiistci" 
to  secure  possession  iiiid  eoiifiol  of  llie  <-liin'eli  jiroperfy.  It 
wjis  liel<l  tliiil  llie  (•(Hijire'^Mt ion,  Inivini;  severed  its  reliitions 
witii  llie  (lislricl  synod,  the  ti'iistees  who  li;id  heen  ousted 
Inid  not  Viiciiled  llie  oHIees,  Imt  were  still  the  lociil  tiMistees 
;ind  entitled  to  the  possession  of  the  jii-opei-ty  nnd  Itoiind  to 
administer  the  ti-nst  vested  in  tlieni  l»y  the  ori<;in;il  deed 
and  by  the  eliarter.  Rarlholoinew  v  liiitheran  ('(Mif^regation, 
;{5  Ohio  iH'tl. 


RELIGIOUS  TOLERATION 

Connecticut,  647. 
Described,  G47. 
Mormons,  G4S. 
Municipal  ordinance,  G48. 
Parental  duty,  649. 
Pennsylvania,  649. 
Protestantism,  650. 

Connecticut.  It  is  the  settled  policy  of  this  State  to  so 
frame  its  legislatiou  that  each  denomination  of  Christians 
may  have  au  equal  right  to  exercise  religions  profession  and 
worship,  and  to  support  and  maintain  its  ministers,  teacli- 
ers,  and  institutions  in  accordance  with  its  own  ])ractice, 
rules,  and  discipline;  and  this  policy  is  conformable  to  the 
provisions  of  our  constitution.  Christ  Church  v  Trustees  of 
Donations  and  Bequests  for  Church  Purposes:  Trustees  of 
Donations  and  Be(juests  for  Church  Purposes  v  Christ 
Church,  67  Conn.  554. 

Described.  In  this  countiT  the  full  and  free  right  to 
entertain  any  religious  belief,  t(»  practice  any  religious  jtriu- 
ciple,  and  to  teach  any  religious  doctrine  which  does  not 
violate  the  laws  of  morality  and  ]>ro])erty.  and  which  <loes 
not  infringe  on  personal  rights,  is  conceded  to  all.  The  law 
knows  no  heresy  and  is  committed  to  the  support  ol  no 
dogma,  the  establishment  of  no  sect.  Pounder  v  Ashe,  44 
Nebr.  Ke.  G72. 

"The  belief  of  no  man  can  be  constrained,  and  the  i>ro]>er 
expression  of  religious  belief  is  guaranteed  to  all."  "When 
religious  belief  or  unbelief  leads  to  acts  which  interfere  with 
the  religious  worshi})  and  rights  of  conscience  of  thos«'  who 
represent  the  religion  of  the  country,  as  estabiislied,  not  by 
law,  but  by  the  consent  and  ns;ige  «)f  the  ct»nininni(y,  and 

047 


(IIS         riii:  ciN  iL  LAW   A\i>  'I'm;  ciii  kch 

existing  Itcloir  llic  orjiiiiiiziHioii  of  llic  ^((xcniiiieiit,  their 
nets  iii;i_v  he  rest riiiiicd  l»y  Ic^ishi t ioii,  ev(Mi  if  they  are  not 
iii(Ii(liil)h>  sil  (((innioii  liiw."  "The  n'lij,nous  UAcv.uwc  is 
never  eoiisisleiil  witli  ;i  recognized  lelij^ioii.  CoiupulsoiT 
worship  of  God  in  any  lorin  is  j»roliibited,  and  every  nian'H 
opinion  on  niatlers  of  religion,  as  in  otlier  matters,  is  be- 
yond the  reaeli  of  hiw."  Lindenniuller  v  Peoi)le,  33  Barb, 
(  X.  Y.  I  r>4S. 

Mormons.  In  tlie  Late  Corporation  of  the  Church  of  Jesus 
Clirist  of  J.atler  Day  Saints  v  Ignited  States,  ViG  U.  S.  1, 
considering  questions  involved  in  the  acts  of  Congress 
repealing  the  acts  creating  the  ^lorinon  Church,  and  dis- 
solving the  corporation,  and  the  right  of  the  federal  govern- 
ment to  declare  the  property  of  the  corporation  forfeited  to 
the  United  States  in  consetpience  of  the  jR-rsistent  propa- 
gation of  the  doctrine  and  ])ractice  of  polygamy,  the  court 
said :  "One  pretense  for  this  obstinate  course  is  that  their 
belief  in  the  i)ractice  of  polygamy,  or  in  the  right  to  indulge 
in  it,  is  a  religious  belief,  and  therefore  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  constitutional  guaranty  of  religious  freedom. 
This  is  altogether  a  soi)liistical  ])lea.  No  d(mbt  the  Thugs 
of  India  imagined  that  their  belief  in  the  right  of  assassina- 
tion was  a  religious  belief;  but  their  thinking  so  did  not 
make  it  so.  The  practice  of  suttee  by  the  Hindu  widows 
may  have  sprung  from  a  supposed  religious  conviction.  The 
offering  of  lunnan  sacrifice  by  our  own  ancestors  in  Britain 
was  no  doubt  sanctioned  by  an  equally  conscientious  im- 
pulse. But  no  one,  on  that  account,  would  hesitate  to  brand 
these  practices  now  as  crimes  against  society,  obnoxious  to 
condemnation  and  punishment  by  the  civil  authority.  The 
state  has  a  i)erfect  right  to  prohibit  polygamy,  and  all  other 
open  ottenses  against  the  enlightened  sentiment  of  mankind, 
notwithstanding  the  pretense  of  religious  conviction  by 
which  they  nniy  be  a<lvocated  and  i)racticed. 

Municipal  Ordinance.  An  ordinance  in  the  city  of  New 
Orleans,  a<lopted  April  7,  1858,  prohibiting  the  assemblage 
of  colored  jiersons  for  religious  worship  except  under  speci- 


RELIGIOUS  TOLERATION  649 

fied  conditions  was  sustained  in  African  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  V  New  Orleans,  15  La.  Ann.  i41. 

Parental  Duty.  Tlie  provision  in  the  New  York  constitu- 
tion guaranteeing  Ireedoni  of  religious  worship  was  not  vio- 
lated by  a  provision  in  the  penal  code  requiring  parents  to 
furnish  medical  attendance  to  their  children  in  time  of 
need,  and  a  father  was  held  not  excused  from  liability  for 
failure  to  furnish  medical  attendance  by  reason  of  liis  belief 
in  divine  healing  which  could  be  accomjtlislK'd  by  prayer; 
tliat  lie  did  not  believe  in  physicians  and  liis  icligious  faith 
led  him  to  believe  that  the  child  would  ,i;(t  well  by  i.iayei-. 
IVople  V  Peirson,  17(1  N.  Y.  201. 

Pennsylvania.  In  their  frame  of  governmei:t  of  the  Trov- 
ince  of  Pennsylvania,  together  with  certain  laws  agreed 
ni)on  in  England  on  the  25111  of  Ai»ril,  H!S2,  will  be  found 
the  following  provision,  which  fornuMl  the  '{5th  section: 
"That  all  persons  living  in  this  j)rovince,  who  confess  and 
acknowledge  the  one  Almighty  and  Eternal  (lod,  to  be  the 
creator,  upholder  and  ruler  of  the  world,  and  that  hobl 
themselves  obliged  in  conscience  to  live  peacea])ly  and  Justly 
in  civil  society,  shall  in  no  ways  be  molested  or  lucjudiced 
for  their  religious  ]»ersinision  or  practice  in  matters  of  faith 
and  worship,  nor  shall  they  be  compelled  at  any  lime  to 
frequent  or  maintain  any  religious  worship,  place,  or  min- 
istry whatever."  In  jniisuance  of  this  plan  of  government 
thus  formed,  and  to  can-y  out  those  great  and  enduring  prin- 
ciples, will  be  found,  in  one  of  the  lirst  laws  enacted  by  them, 
and  entitled  a  law  concerning  liberty  of  cousciem-e.  the  fol- 
lowing remarkable  sentiments:  "Almighty  (lod,  being  only 
Lord  of  Conscience,  I-'ather  of  Lights  and  S])irits,  and  the 
author  as  well  as  object  of  all  divine  knowledge,  faith,  and 
W(U"ship,  who  only  can  enlighten  tiie  minds  :ind  persuade 
and  convince  the  understanding  of  the  peo|>le  in  due  rever- 
ence to  his  sovereignty  over  the  souls  of  mankind;  it  is  en- 
acted by  the  anthoi'ity  aforesaid,  that  no  person  at  any 
time  hereafter,  living  in  this  provine(N  \\ho  shall  confess  and 
acknowledge  one  Almighty  <Jod  to  be  the  creator,  uphobler 


(;:.(►        'nii:  cin  ii.  law   and  riii;  cm  i;(  ii 

jiimI  niirr  of  llic  woi-ld,  iiiid  tluit  prorcssctli  liiiii  oi-  InTNcIf 
<>l)Iij;('<l  ill  conscience  to  live  pciiccnlMy  iind  justly  under  the 
civil  <;<)vernnient,  sluili  in  ;iiiy\\ise  Im;  molested  or  jueju- 
diced  for  his  or  lier  conscientious  ]»ei'su:isions,  noi"  shall  he 
or  she  nt  any  time  he  compelled  1(»  Ireciuent  oi-  maintain 
any  relij^ious  worshij>,  place,  or  ministry  whatever,  con- 
tiary  to  his  or  her  mind,  but  shall  fully  and  fieely  enjoy 
his  or  her  (Mnistian  liberty  in  that  respect,  without  any 
iuterruj>tion  or  reflection;  and  if  any  ])erson  shall  abuse  or 
deride  any  other  for  his  or  her  different  persuasion  and 
practice  in  a  matter  of  religion,  such  shall  be  looked  upon 
as  a  disturber  of  the  peace  and  be  punished  accordingly." 
Here  we  have  the  sound  doctrines  and  Christian  precepts 
of  William  Penn,  promulgated  to  the  world  as  the  true 
foundation  of  this  new  government.  He  was  attached  to 
the  Society  of  Friends,  and  in  a  government  framed  by 
him  and  in  laws  dictated  by  his  wisdom,  we  first  fin<l  provi- 
sion made  for  true  liberty  of  conscience  in  relation  to 
religious  worship.  Before  this  time  these  princijjles  had 
no  place  in  the  statute  books  of  any  j)eople.  They  formed 
no  part  of  the  institutions  of  any  country.  They  do  not 
appear  to  have  entered  into  the  mind  of  any  man  except 
Lord  Baltimore,  who  was  a  Roman  Catholic,  and  had  intro- 
duced the  principles  into  Maryland.  Here  in  this  country 
for  the  first  time  they  were  made  a  part  of  the  funda- 
mental law  of  a  distinct  people.  Commonwealth  v  Sig- 
man,  2  (Mark  (Pa.)  36. 

Protestantism.  Religious  toleration  is  the  vital  principle 
of  Protestantism.     Anderson  v  Brock,  •{  Me.  2-t8. 

See  also  article  on  Religious  Freedom. 


RELIGIOUS  WORSHIP 

Basis  of  public  recognition,  G51. 

Camp  meeting,  651. 

Defined,  652. 

Duty  of  person  attending,  652. 

Majority  may  regulate,  653. 

Musical  instruction;  singing,  653. 

Orphan  asylum,  653. 

Place  of,  when  exempt  from  taxation,  653. 

Preserving  order,  653. 

Protestant  meetings,  654. 

Regulations,  when  illegal,  654. 

Removing  disturbers,  654. 

Right  of  choice,  655. 

Sunday  school,  when  not  included,  655. 

Taxes,  apportionment,  655. 

Usage  of  congregation,  655. 

Basis  of  Public  Recognition.  "The  public  recognition  of 
religious  worship  is  not  based  entirely,  perhaps  not  even 
mainly,  nj)on  a  sense  of  what  is  due  to  the  Supreme  Being 
himself  as  the  author  of  all  good  and  of  all  law;  but  the 
same  reasons  of  state  policy  which  induced  the  govern- 
ment to  aid  institutions  of  charitj'  and  semitiaries  of  instruc- 
lion  will  incline  it  also  to  fo.ster  religiotis  worshii)  and  reli- 
gious institutions,  as  the  conservators  of  public  morals  and 
valuable,  if  not  indispensalde,  assistants  in  fhe  preservation 
of  pnldic  oi'<ler."  Trnstees  First  Methodist  lOpistopal 
(Miurch,  South  v  Atlanta,  TG  Ga.  181. 

Camp  Meeting,  fanij)  meetings  are  i)laces  of  religious 
woi'sliip;  it  is  the  favorite  meeting  jtlace  in  the  pleasant 
season  of  the  year  of  one  of  the  largest  and  most  inlluential 
religious  bodies  in  the  land.  The  meetings  are  condtu-ted 
in  the  same  manner  as  if  held  in  clinnli ;  it  is  divine  wor- 

651 


(Ml'        'riir:  cixil  law  a.\i>  thi:  ciukcii 

ship,  .-iii«l  so  iiiitlcrslddd   li\    :ill  ( 'lirist  i.iii   pcopli'.     ('niiiiiion 
wealth  V  Fiilh'i-,  I   I'u.  Co.  CI.  1L'!». 

Defined.  "In  iiMxh'ni  (iiiics,  llic  provision  of  ;i  j)lace  and 
olhci-  niciiiis  of  pnhlic  \vorshi|»,  a<<-or(ling  to  th(;  I'roteHtant 
ideas,  inipli«'s  the  asseinhiin^  of  a  body  of  |»ersoiis  together 
for  the  general  services  of  ])nl)]ic  worship,  and  for  religious 
instruction :  and  as  connected  therewith,  a  select  body, 
forming  and  connected  together  by  the  covenant,  who  con- 
stitute a  church  in  full  communion,  invested,  among  other 
things,  Willi  the  especial  <luty  and  privilege  of  administer- 
ing the  Cliristian^  ordinances."  Attoruej'-General  v  Pro- 
prietors of  Meetinghouse  in  Federal  Street,  Boston,  3  Gray 
(Mass.)  1. 

Religious  worship  consists  in  the  performance  of  ail  the 
external  acts,  and  the  observance  of  all  ordinances  and  cere- 
monies which  are  engaged  in  with  the  sole  and  avowed 
object  of  honoring  CJod.    Chase  v  Cheney,  58  111.  501). 

The  term  should  be  construed  to  include  within  the  bene- 
ficial operations  of  the  statute  every  variety  of  religious 
faith  and  belief  and  every  religious  philosophy  of  life  or 
death.  As  applied  to  a  church  which  accepts  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures  and  the  divinity  of  Jesus,  it  means 
the  assembling  together  of  the  members  in  a  congregation, 
together  with  others  that  may  choose  to  come,  for  the  pur- 
po.se  of  worshii)ing  God  according  to  the  religions  forms  of 
the  particular  organization  in  question.  Re  Walker,  200 
111.  566. 

In  ]>opular  usage  "religions  service"  is  synonymous  with 
"divine  service."  Proof  that  a  congregation  was  assembled 
at  a  Methodist  Episcopal  church,  at  which  there  was  preach- 
ing and  taking  up  of  a  collection,  is  sufficient  to  show  that 
there  was  a  congregation  of  persons  lawfully  assvMubled  for 
divine  service.    McDaniel  v  State,  5  Ga.  App.  831. 

Duty  of  Person  Attending.  It  is  the  duty  of  every  person 
attending  cliurtli,  no  matter  of  what  denomination,  to  pay 
that  respect  to  the  place  and  the  people  assembled  there  as 
not  to  disturb  or  molest  tlioni  in  their  worship.    Under  the 


RELIGIOUS  WORSHIP  «;:j:; 

free  coiistitutioii  ol'  this  counliy  no  man  is  conipelk'*!  to 
go  to  auy  particular  church,  uor,  indeed,  to  any  cli\nch  at 
all,  but  if  he  does  so  (as  it  is  the  duty  of  every  man  to  go 
to  some  church),  it  is  his  duty  to  behave  himself  while  there 
with  decorum  aud  respect.  I'eople  v  Browu,  1  Wheelers  Cr. 
erases,  121. 

Majority  May  Regulate.  A  few  of  the  members,  including 
some  of  the  olhcers,  but  against  the  i)rotest  of  the  majorit}', 
])la(e(l  a  musical  organ  in  the  churdi  for  use  in  the  service. 
Thi.s  ( lunch  was  Congregational  and  Independent.  Tlie 
majority  of  the  officers  and  congregation  had  power  to  con- 
trol forms  of  worslii|)  and  the  minorlt}'  did  not  possess  power 
(o  place  an  organ  in  this  church  without  the  consent  of  the 
majority.  Such  action  by  the  minority  was  unauthorized 
and  illegal  and  constituted  a  perversion  of  the  church  prop- 
erty which  could  be  restrained  by  the  order  of  the  court. 
Hackney  v  ^"awter,  ?A)  Kan.  015. 

Musical  Instruction;  Singing.  ''If  the  purpose  of  the  meet- 
ing be  solely  for  instruction  in  the  art  of  singing,  although 
confined  to  the  singing  of  sacred  songs,  this  would  not  be 
an  assend)lage  met  for  religious  worship."     Adair  v  State, 

KU  Ala.  is;:. 

Orphan  Asylum.  Religious  services  held  in  a  colored 
orphan  asylum  on  Sunday  for  the  inmates  only,  visitors  not 
being  a<lmitted,  do  not  constitute  ])nblic  worship.  Asso- 
ciation for  the  Benefit  of  Colored  Orphans  in  New  York  v 
New  Yoik,  101  X.  Y.  ^>^^. 

Place  of,  When  Exempt  from  Taxation.  The  buildings 
owned  by  the  association  were  held  to  be  places  of  worship 
within  the  constitutional  jii-ovision  exempting  such  places 
fi'om  taxation;  also  vacant  land  held  pending  its  sale  used 
for  the  general  purposes  of  the  association  was  exempt 
under  the  jtrovision  of  the  constitution  allo\\ing  the  I'xemp- 
tion  of  ncd  more  than  one  half  an  acre  in  cities.  Connnon- 
wealth  V  Young  Men's  Christian  Associati<ni.  !*.">  Ky.  Law 
Rep.  1)10. 

Preserving  Order.     A  ilinrchwarden  may  take  the  hat   oil" 


cr.i        'I'm;  ("i\ii.  law  am>  tiii;  cm  ijcii 

tlic  Ii(';hI  oI'  one  wlio  sils  lliciH'  ('(vcn-d  diiiiiijj;  (liviiic  serv- 
ice. Such  ;icl  docs  iiol  constitute  ;iii  assjinlt.  Ilnll  v 
riaiiiier,   1    Levin/-   (  Va\^.)    lIXj. 

Protestant  Meetings.  In  Stale  v  Scheve,  (>.">  Neb.  .S."jo,  involv 
iiig  a  question  of  the  right  to  read  the  Bible  and  conduct 
relij^ious  service  in  the  j)ublic  schools,  J»i<l«;e  Ames  said: 
"I'l-otestant  seels  who  maintain,  as  a  i)art  of  their  ritual 
and  discii)line,  stated  weekly  meetings,  in  which  the  exer- 
cises consist  largely  of  j)rayers  and  songs,  and  the  reading 
and  repetition  of  scriptural  j)assages,  would  no  doubt 
vehemently  dissent  from  the  proj)osition  that  such  exer- 
cises are  not  devotional,  or  not  in  an  exalted  degree  wor- 
shipful, or  not  intended  for  religious  edification  or  instruc- 
tion ;  that  they  possess  all  these  features  is  a  fact  of  such 
universal  and  familiar  knowledge  that  the  courts  will  take 
judicial  notice  of  it  without  formal  i)roof." 

Regulations,  When  Illegal.  The  authorities  of  a  clnii-ch 
adoi)ted  a  regulation  that  no  i)er.son  should  go  out  of  the 
church  during  divine  service  without  their  exi)ress  permis- 
sion. This  regulation  was  held  to  be  illegal,  and  an  infringe- 
ment ui)on  natural  liberty  and  private  right.  People  v 
Brown,  1  Wheelers  Cr.  Cases  (N.  Y.)   124. 

Removing  Disturbers.  A  religious  societ;s'  may  prescribe 
such  rules  as  they  may  think  proper  for  preserving  order 
when  met  for  public  worship,  and  they  may  use  the  neces- 
sary force  to  remove  a  person  who  is  disturbing  the  society 
by  willful  violation  of  a  rule.  McLain  v  Matlock,  7  hid. 
525. 

Usage  and  custom  have  made  it  peculiarly  the  duty  of  the 
minister  or  priest  to  conduct  the  services  of  religious  meet- 
ings, to  i)reside  over  them,  to  preserve  order  therein,  and  act 
as  the  organ  and  spokesman  of  the  congregation.  It  is  most 
approi)riate  that  the  minister  or  priest  should  preserve 
order  an<l  rebuke  all  violations  of  it.  As  the  acknowledged 
I)residing  officer  of  the  meeting  it  is  his  dutj'  to  check  all 
attemi)ts  to  interrupt  its  order,  quietness,  and  solemnity, 
and  tor  this  ])urjiose  he  unquestionably  has  full  po^^er  and 


KELIGIOUS  AVOKSHIP  G55 

authority  to  call  upon  others  to  aid  liim  oi*  direct  them  to 
remove  the  otteuder.    Wall  v  Lee,  34  X.  Y.  141. 

Right  of  Choice.  The  courts  cannot  com])(4  an  individual 
to  attend  worship  in  any  place,  nor  remain  c(7nnected  witli 
any  church,  nor  to  receive  anyone  as  his  pastor.  These  are 
nmtters  which  are  relegated  to  the  domain  of  the  individual 
conscience,  and  over  which  neitlier  Jvcgislature  nor  court  can 
exercise  any  control.  Keligious  freedom  means  absolute 
personal  indeiK'udence.  Feizel  v  First  German  Society  of 
M.  E.  Church,  !)  Kan.  ."iJH'. 

Sunday  School,  When  Not  Included.  Two  societies  l)uilt 
a  house  of  worship  togethei-,  inuler  an  agreement  which  pro- 
vided that  the  house  should  be  used  in  common  only  for 
divine  service.  For  twenty  years  the  house  was  used  only 
as  a  i»lace  of  worship.  The  congregation  organized  and 
maintained  a  union  Sunday  school  in  a  schoolhouse  near 
the  church.  After  a  time  the  Lutherans  withdrew  from  the 
union  school,  and  established  a  Sunday  school  in  the  au- 
dience room  of  the  church  against  tlie  ])rotest  of  the  German 
Reformed  Societ\\  It  was  lield  that  the  term  ''divine  serv- 
ice" did  not  include  a  Sunday  sch(»ol.  Tliat  the  term  was 
intended  to  include  prayer,  praise,  an<l  worship  in  the 
ordinary  sense,  and  not  school  instruction  as  applied  under 
the  Sun<l;ty  scliool  mctliods.     Gass  Ai>]>eal,  7'^  Pa.  30. 

Taxes,  Apportionment.  The  provision  in  the  Massachu.^etts 
Declaration  of  Rights  that  "all  moneys  pai<l  by  the  subject 
to  the  sn|>i)oi't  of  public  \vorsliip.  and  ol'  the  jtublic  teachers 
afoi'csaid,  shall,  if  he  re(piire  it,  be  uniformly  apjdied  to  the 
supi>ort  of  the  teacher  of  his  (»\\  u  religious  denoiiiinal  ion. 
on  whose  iiist  luct  ion  he  attends"  was  hehl  not  to  include 
a  i)ublic  teacher  chosen  by  a  v<duntai'v  association  of  Fni- 
versalists.  The  society  must  have  been  incoi'porated  to 
entitle  its  membei-s  to  direct  the  disjiosition  of  taxes  i-aised 
for  religious  ])urposes.  Barnes  v  First  Pari.sh,  Falmmith, 
()  Mass.  401. 

Usage  of  Congregation.  When  a  hoiise  is  erected  for  reli- 
gious worship,  and   it  cannot  be  discovered   what   was  the 


(ir.c        Tiir:  cixii.  law   A.\h  'I'lii;  cui ucii 

iKihii'e  (>r  the  woi'sliij)  inlciKlc*]  hy  it.  it  must  lie  iiii|)li('<I 
from  the  usage  of  the  eoiigregatioii,  jind  it  is  tlic  duty  of  tin* 
court  to  administer  the  trust  in  sucli  manner  as  best  to 
establisli  the  usage,  considering  it  a  matter  of  implied  eon- 
tract  with  the  congregation.  Greek  Catholic  Church  v 
Orthodox  Greek  Church,  195  Pa.  St.  425. 


ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH 

Archbishop,  may  appomt  directors  of  corporation,  658. 

Archbishop,  title  to  i)roperty,  059. 

Archbishop,  title  to  property,  pew.s,  659. 

Bishop  and  priest,  relations,  659. 

Bishop,  authority,  660. 

Bishop's  control  over  priest,  660. 

Bishop,  liability  on  contracts,  661. 

Bishop,  no  contract  relation  with  local  church,  661. 

Bi.sho[)  not  hable  for  priest's  salary',  001. 

Bishop's  powers,  001. 

Bishoj),  relation  to  corporation,  Louisiana  Church  of  St.  Louis,  661. 

liishop's  supervision,  662. 

Bishop's  title  to  land — cemetery,  663. 

Bishop's  title  to  property,  663. 

Bishoj),  when  not  liable  in  damages,  666. 

Burial  M:round,  666. 

(,'alifornia  missions,  666. 

Catholic  Knights  of  Wisconsin,  667. 

Catholic,  rehition  how  determined,  (507. 

Cemetery,  e.xclusicjn  of  non-Catholics,  067. 

Cemetery,  suicide  not  entitled  to  burial,  668. 

(Congregation,  relation  to  general  church,  669. 

Corporate  rights,  669. 

Enghsh  toleration,  669. 

Fraternal  beneficiary  society,  670. 

Independent  cori)oration,  powers,  670. 

Independent  society,  St.  Anthony  Church,  672. 

Jesuit  Order,  672. 

Ladies'  club,  672. 

Louisiana  corporation,  powers  of  local  officers,  673. 

Mexico,  674. 

Mexico  and  Texas,  674. 

Minority's  right,  675. 

Nebraska,  status  of  church,  675. 

New  York,  incorporation,  effect,  675. 

()ri)han  A.sj-lum,  not  a  common  school,  676. 

Parish  register,  670. 

Penusjlvania,  earl}'  toleration,  676. 

657 


(i.-.s        'riii:  ciNii.  LAW  AND  Tin;  (111  i:(  ii 

I'liilippiiic  Islands,  077. 

l*oj)(*'s  position  under  international  law,  077. 

Porto  Rico,  678. 

Priest,  678. 

Priest,  action  against  for  slander,  078. 

Priest's  authority,  670. 

Priest,  bishop's  power  of  removal,  070. 

Priest,  expulsion,  070. 

Priest,  inaintaininf^  order  al  meetings,  079. 

Priest,  power  to  preserve  order  in  ehunh  services,  680. 

Priest,  iKtt  bishop's  agent,  0S(). 

Priest,  obligation,  08(). 

Priest,  removal  without  notice,  080. 

Priest's  right  of  action  against  bishop,  681. 

Priest,  salary,  681. 

Property,  how  held,  681. 

Property  right,  082. 

Providence  Hospital,  683. 

Rector,  ratifying  acts,  683. 

St.  Anne's  Catholic  Apostolic  and  Roman  Church,  Detroit,  Michigan,  684. 

Sexton's  salary,  684. 

Sisters  of  St.  Francis,  684. 

Slander,  e.xcommunication,  685. 

Spanish  America,  685. 

Spanish  America,  Umitation  of  papal  authority,  686. 

Spanish  sovereignty,  687. 

Spanish  supremacy  in  colonies,  687. 

Students,  voting  residence,  688. 

Texas,  088. 

Unincorporated  Church,  trust  sustained,  688. 

Woodstock  College,  Maryland,  689. 

Archbishop,  May  Appoint  Directors  of  Corporation.  In  ISSS 
the  Franciscan  Fathers  of  St.  Louis,  Missouri,  conveyed  to 
Archbisliop  Kcndrick  certain  real  estate  in  trust  for  the 
con<>regation  of  St.  Stanislaus  of  the  city  of  St.  Louis,  and 
assigns  forever,  which  congregation  was  composed  of  I'olish 
connnunicants  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Afterward  the  ardi- 
bishop  executed  a  conveyance  of  this  property  to  the  St. 
Stanislaus  congregation.  The  archbishop  had  power  to  ap- 
point tlie  directors  of  the  corporation. 

The  i>laintitfs  in  tliis  action  claimed  the  right  to  elect  the 


KOMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  050 

tlirectors  or  to  take  part  in  their  election.  It  was  held  that 
tlie  plaintiffs  were  not  members  of  the  St.  Stanislans  Parish 
corporation,  nor  entitled  to  a  decree  conferring  the  right  of 
membership  upon  them,  Klix  v  St.  Stanislaus  Church,  137 
Mo.  A  pp.  rUT. 

Archbishop,  Title  to  Property.  Keal  estate  was  conveyetl 
to  the  archbishop  by  his  individual  name  without  any  trust 
or  limitation.  Tlie  j)roi)erty  was  intended  for  the  use,  and 
was  used  as  the  archbishop's  residence.  The  })roi)erty  was 
paid  for  in  large  part  by  contributions  from  members  of  tlie 
congregation.  The  archl)ishop  lield  tlie  title  for  the  duirch, 
and  not  as  an  individual.  It  was  lield  tliat  the  property  was 
not  exempt  from  taxation.    Katzer  v  Milwaukee,  104  Wis.  IG. 

Archbishop,  Title  to  Property,  Pews.  The  archbishop,  who 
l)y  the  law  of  the  cliurch,  owned  the  soil  on  which  the  church 
edifice  stood,  conveyed  a  pew  by  deed  in  the  usual  form, 
except  that  it  did  not  liave  a  seal,  nor  use  words  calling  for 
a  seal.  It  was  held  that  the  question  whether  the  pew- 
owner  had  acquired  the  right  to  a  pew  by  adverse  posses- 
sion should  have  been  snbmitlod  to  the  jury.  It  was  also 
said  in  the  case  *'that  the  archbishop  had  no  greater  rights 
in  respect  to  the  demolition  of  pews  than  an  organized  reli- 
gious corporation  of  any  other  (lenoniination  would  have 
had  by  reason  of  its  ownership  of  the  church."  Aylward  v 
O'Brien,  160  Mass.  118. 

Bishop  and  Priest,  Relations.  The  bishop  ha.s  ])ower  to 
determine  questions  relating  to  the  service  and  usefulness 
of  the  priest.  The  relation  between  them  is  not  that  of  a 
hirer  and  hired.  When  a  priest  dedicates  liis  life  to  the 
church  and  takes  upon  liinisell'  the  vov.s  of  olxMlieiice  to  its 
laws  he  is  presumed  1o  be  actuated  by  a  higher  principle 
than  the  hope  of  gain.  Where  he  has  an  actual  contract 
with  his  congregation  or  his  bisiiop  foi*  a  salary  it  may  be 
enforced  as  any  other  contract;  but  where  he  relies  ujion 
the  duty  of  his  church  to  snjypoit  him  he  must  invoke  the 
aid  of  the  chui-ch  if  he  seeks  redress,  in  Tni;:g  v  Sheehan, 
101  I*a.  St.  ;>(i.'l.  the  |il;iintin'.  \\ln>  h;i<l  al  some  lime  occupied 


<;(;o        THio  ('i\ii.  LAW  AM>  'I'm;  ciiciirii 

llic  position  of  piicsl  of  tlic  j»;irisli.  hronglit  an  ar-fion 
against  llio  bishop  to  r-ccovcr  salai-v  fof  three  years.  I)ni' 
ing  that  time  the  priest  liad  nol  performed  any  servi<-e, 
and  liad  been  absent  from  llic  pai-ish  mosf  of  the  time.  It 
was  liebl  thai  thcr*'  was  no  ((tnti-acl  i'clati(»ii  between  the 
pi-iest  and  tiic  ltisho]»,  and  no  action  could  be  maintaiiMMl 
against  the  l)isliop  for  his  salai'V. 

Bishop,  Authority.  The  bishop  ol'  the  dioc<  sc  i  Pittsburgh  ) 
is  trustee  of  the  c(nigregalion  in  its  temporal  affairs,  and, 
either  directly  him.self  oi-  throngh  the  priest  and  ]>astor  of 
his  a])])oinlment,  coiiti'ols  and  dii-ects  the  receipts,  and 
ap])lication  of  the  i)T'o]»erty,  income,  and  ex]»euditui'es  of 
the  congregation,  but  tlie  bishojt  has  no  riglit  to  aiii)ropriate 
the  property  for  other  use  than  that  of  tlie  congregation. 
Tuigg  V  Treacy,  KM   I'a.  40r?. 

Bishop's  Control  Over  Priest.  The  bishop  made  a  decree  or 
order  transfeiTing  the  defendant,  a  i>riest,  from  Sewai-d  to 
Red  riond  in  the  diocese  of  Lincoln.  The  defendant  was  at 
that  time  occnjiying  certain  church  property  at  Seward,  and 
also  at  Ulysses.  He  refused  to  vacate  the  property  and 
remove  to  Red  Tloud,  as  required  by  the  bisho])'s  order. 
The  order  transferring  the  <lefendaut  included  an  order  sus- 
pending him  from  the  mission  at  Seward.  Subsequently  the 
bishoj)  excommunicate*!  the  priest  for  disobedience  to  the 
order,  and  for  gross  insubordination,  but  the  defendant  con- 
tinued to  exercise  the  functions  of  a  priest  at  the  nnssion, 
including  the  collection  of  revenues,  and  refused  to  permit 
another  priest  appointed  as  his  successor  to  assume  the 
duties  of  his  office.  The  defendant  denied  the  right  of  the 
bisho])  to  make  the  removal  without  giving  him,  the  defend- 
ant, an  opportunity  to  be  heard.  T!ie  defendant  did  ai)pear 
on  notice  for  the  purpose  of  a  hearing,  but  challenged  the 
right  of  the  bishop  to  act  in  the  matter,  and  the  defendant 
thereui)on  ap])ealed  to  the  highest  church  court.  He  re- 
sponded to  another  notice  to  appear,  again  challenged  the 
bishop,  again  a])pealed.  On  the  first  hearing  tlie  idaintiff 
was  enjoined  from  proceeding  with  the  case  until  the  deci- 


ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CllUKCH  (JtU 

sion  of  tlie  api»eal  by  the  (lefeudanl  to  tlie  courl  at  Home. 
Boiiacuni  v  ^lui'i)hy,  71  Neb.  4Go.  On  a  rehearing,  i»age  487, 
the  foriiier  judgment  was  reversed  and  the  proceeding  dis- 
missed witliont  prejudice  to  a  new  proceeding  by  either 
parly. 

Bishop,  Liability  on  Contracts.  A  bishop  cannot  be  hebl 
liable  on  the  contracts  of  his  ])redecessor  nnless  he  has  ex- 
I)ressly  agreed  in  i)ro])er  form  and  for  a  sufficient  consi<lera- 
tion  to  become  liable  thereon.  The  personal  contracts  of  a 
bishop  are  the  same  as  those  of  a  layman,  so  far  as  their 
form,  force,  and  effect  are  concerned.  Baxter  v  McDonnell, 
155  N.  Y.  S:{. 

Bishop,  No  Contract  Relation  with  Local  Church.  This  was 
held  in  Wardens  of  the  Church  of  St.  Louis  v  Blanc,  8  Rob. 
(La.)  51,  where  it  was  also  said  that  the  relation  between 
the  bishop  and  a  local  society  gives  rise  to  no  contract  obli- 
gation. The  bishop  is  quite  indeijendent  of  the  church- 
wardens except  in  relation  to  his  spiritual  or  sacerdotal 
functions. 

Bishop  Not  Liable  for  Priest's  Salary.  In  Rose  v  Vertin,  40 
Mich.  457,  it  was  held  that  the  bishop  who  designated  a 
priest  to  serve  a  i)articnlar  church  did  not  thereby  become 
liable  for  the  i>riest's  salary.  They  were  both  servants  of 
the  chui'ch,  the  bishop's  relation  being  that  of  a  superior, 
and  the  i)riest  was  bound  to  look  to  the  congregation  for 
his  compensation. 

Bishop's  Powers.  The  bishoj)  is  the  governing  power  of  the 
Catholic  Clmich  in  his  diocese.  He  is  said  to  be  the  supreme 
pastor,  the  supreme  teacher,  the  supreme  governor.  It  is 
his  duty,  under  the  laws  aiul  discijdine  of  the  churrli,  to 
administer  the  regulations  above  nu'utioned,  and  in  so  do- 
ing necessarily  to  construe  and  inler])ret  them.  Ilis  deci- 
sion is  to  be  final  and  conclusive,  excejit  as  reviewed  by  his 
ecclesiastical  superiors  at  Rome.  Bonatum  v  Harrington, 
05  Neb.  83  L 

Bishop,  Relation  to  Corporation,  Louisiana  Church  of  St. 
Louis.      This   church    was   iiuorporaled    in    1810   by   special 


iwiL'        Tin;  CIS  II-  LAW  AM>  'nii;  cm  kcii 

;i(l  (»r  IIm'  I.(»uisi;i  ii;i  Lcj;isl;i  I  me.  Tlic  ;hI  |tro\i(ic(|  lor  a 
l»(»;ir<l  (>r  cliiircliw  ;i  fdciis  coliiiioscd  rliiclly  of  l;i yiiicii.  1Mlis 
hoard  liiid  no  |»o\\"('r  to  appoint  a  ciiralc,  hut  it  was  tlieir 
<luty  to  i»rovid<'  I'oi"  the  salai-y  of  tlic  curat*';  but  tlun'  had 
a  riglil  lo  withhold  all  sahiiy  from  any  pci'son  whalcver, 
and  even  to  jMcvcnt  any  person  ciainiinj^  to  he  curate,  from 
('nl(M'in«;  the  cliui'ch  heloni^in;;  to  the  corjiorat ion.  In  an 
action  hi'onj;h(  hy  (he  churchwaT-dens  aj];ainst  lh(»  Bishop 
of  JiOuisiana  to  recovei-  (hinia<!jes  for  havinj;  asked  for  an  in- 
(•rease  in  salary,  asseiMinj^  the  right  of  ajtprovini;-  the  taritfs. 
requesting  tliat  the  cni-ate  liave  supervision  of  the  i-ecords 
of  marriages  and  a}»])ointment  of  subordinates  who  ofliciated 
in  the  churcli,  declining  to  aj»]ioint  a  curate  and  to  admit 
that  the  churchwai'dens  had  the  right  to  a]»])ointnieiit ; 
thanking  the  tenqiei-ance  society  for  symi)a1hizing  with  liim 
in  liis  cause,  and  withdrawing  from  the  sei-vices  of  the 
church  all  ju-iests  except  one,  resulting  in  the  substantial 
desertion  of  the  cathedral  services,  it  was  lield  that  the  re- 
lations between  the  churchwardens  and  the  bisho]»  implied 
no  civil  contract,  and  consequently  gave  rise  to  no  civil 
obligations.  The  bislioj)  was  inde])endent  of  the  church- 
Mardens  excei»t  in  relation  to  his  spiritual  or  sacerdotal 
fmictions.  Wardens  of  the  Church  of  St.  Louis  v  Blanc, 
S  Kol>.  (La.)  52. 

Bishop's  Supervision.  Under  the  law  of  the  Koman  Catholic 
(.^hurch  the  bishop  has  full  power  in  the  administration 
of  church  affairs;  there  are  no  se]»arate  parishes;  the  dio- 
cese is  the  parish  and  the  bishop  the  universal  parish  priest ; 
all  power  possessed  by  priests  or  pastors  is  delegated  from 
the  bishop;  the  clergynmn  in  charge  of  a  church  for  the  time 
being  has  charge  of  all  its  temporalities;  it  belongs  to  such 
pastor  to  make  all  contracts  relating  to  the  temporal  affairs 
of  the  church,  and  he  is  not  the  agent  or  servant  of  the 
bishop  in  such  nuitters;  the  only  control  of  the  bishop  over 
the  pastor  is  by  ecclesiastical  discipline;  and  a  bishoj)  can- 
not remove  a  i)riest  exce]>t  for  cause  and  by  ecclesiastical 
discipline.     Leahey  v  Williams.  141   Mass.  I'L"). 


KOMAN  CATHOLIC  CUUKCH  G(J3 

Bishop's  Title  to  Land — Cemetery.  A  conveyauce  ol  laud 
was  made  to  a  bishop  and  to  his  heiis  aud  assigns  forever 
*'in  trust  for  the  Catholic  conuiiniiity  for  the  purpose  of  a 
free  burial  ground."  The  bishop  acquired  an  estate  in  fee, 
and  could  maintain  an  action  of  trespass  against  the  bene- 
ficiaries. The  land  was  purchased  and  paid  for  by  members 
of  the  community,  the  deed  being  taken  in  the  bishop's  name. 
The  land  was  surveyed  and  lots  assigned  to  different  mem- 
bers of  the  community,  who  ornamented  the  lots  and  in- 
curred the  expenses  in  connection  therewith.  Fitzpatrick  v 
Fitzgerald,  13  Gray  (Mass.)  400. 

Bishop's  Title  to  Property.  Land  was  conveyed  to  the 
Bishop  of  Galveston  for  the  use  of  the  Koman  Catholic 
Church,  to  be  held  by  him  and  his  successors  in  office  for 
such  use  forever.  It  was  held  that  tlie  bishop  took  a  fee 
simple  title  for  the  benefit  of  the  church.  Olcott  v  Gabert, 
86  Tex.  121. 

It  is  a  matter  of  historical  and  common  knowledge  that 
the  form  of  government  in  the  Koman  Catholic  Church  is 
an  episcopacy,  and  in  whicli  the  diocesan  bishops  possess 
enlarged  powers  r-es])ec1iiig  the  temj)oral  as  well  as  the  spir- 
itual affairs  of  the  church  in  their  respective  dioceses.  Blanc 
V  Alsbury,  63  Tex.  489. 

"The  title  to  the  real  estate  resides  in  the  bishop  of  the 
diocese.  In  a  certain  .sense  he  is  a  trustee  thereof  for  reli- 
gious uses,  but  there  is  no  declaration  of  trust,  and  he  con- 
trols the  (Mijoymcnt  aixl  transmits  the  title  by  devise.  Tlie 
purpose  of  this  arrangement  is  to  exclude  the  laity  from 
that  power  of  interference  which  they  would  have  were  the 
title  vested  in  the  coriioratioii.  lint  inasmnch  as  the  liold- 
ers  of  such  titles  are  not  corpoiations,  cither  soU;  or  aggre- 
gate, as  are  the  J"]nglish  bishoj),  deans,  and  even  parsons, 
lands  held  by  them  do  not  ]>ass  to  their  successors  in  otlice 
unless  through  the  in.strumentality  of  a  deed  or  will." 
Strong's  Relations  of  Civil  Law  to  Church  Polity,  quoted  by 
Judge  \'ann  in  Baxter  v  McDonnell,  1.").')  X.  Y.  S."{. 

The  church  jtrojierty  in  the  Diocese  of  Cincinnati  was  held 


(ilil  Tin;  ('l\  IL   LAW    AM>  TIM;  rill   Kdl 

ill  the  iKiiiu'  (>r  tlu'  l>isli<>|)  or  iirclihisliop.  I)ul  in  trust  lor  ilic 
vjirious  (•oii<;r('<^;iti()iis  who  coiitrilnitcd  for  the  siijjporf  of 
pastors  iiiid  till'  cxpciiscH  of  the  local  clnirchcs.  The  local 
••oii^ic^atioiis  were  not  so  organized  as  to  enable  them  to 
hold  the  title  to  chiinh  i>roperty.  The  archbishop  being 
heavily  indebted.  hkhU'  an  assigninent  for  the  benefit  of 
creditors,  but  it  was  held  that  it  was  not  an  ofTicial  assign- 
ment. The  assignment  carried  only  the  archbishop's  indi- 
vidual iu-oi)erty,  and  not  the  property  held  by  him  in  tnist 
for  the  various  congregations  and  for  other  religious  pur- 
poses.   Mannix  v  I'urcell,  40  Ohio  St.  102. 

Certain  members  of  the  local  society,  being  dissatisfied 
with  the  management  of  the  property,  brought  an  action 
against  the  bishoj)  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  some  part  in 
the  control  of  the  ])ro])erty,  alleging  that  the  property  was 
acquired  by  contributions  from  the  people  under  circum- 
stances which  created  a  trust.  The  legal  title  had  been  con- 
veyed to  the  bisho])  without  any  provision  creating  a  trust, 
and  under  the  law  of  the  church  the  property  was  held  for 
the  use  of  the  congregation  who  attend  public  worshiji 
therein.  The  idaintilfs  were  not  entitled  to  the  relief  sought. 
Hennes.sey  v  Walsh,  55  N.  H.  515. 

Where  juojierty  is  purchased  by  a  congregation  for  a 
si)ecial  i»urpo.se,  although  the  deed  is  made  to  the  bishop,  the 
congregation  is  entitled  to  control  the  property,  and  the 
bi.shoj)  holds  the  proi>erty  in  trust  for  the  congregation. 
Fink  V  Umscheid,  40  Kan.  271. 

In  Heiss  v  Vosburg,  51>  Wis.  5:>2,  it  appeared  that  in  1S(»('> 
the  trustees  of  Sinsiuawa  Mound  College  conveyed  certain 
real  estate,  on  which  there  was  a  church  building,  to  the 
bisho]i  of  Milwaukee  for  the  nominal  consideration  of  one 
dollar.  It  also  appeared  that  the  bishop  devised  this  prop- 
erty to  his  oflicial  successor,  w  ho  bi-ought  this  action,  claim- 
ing that  the  defendants  had  unlawfully  entered  on  the 
premises,  torn  down  and  removed  the  building  thereon  and 
were  digging  up  and  removing  the  soil  for  the  purpose  of 
laving  the  fouinlation  lor  a  new  buildinii:  which  they  threat- 


KO.MAX   CAI'IIOIJC   (lII'RCn  V,Cir> 

ened  to  erect  against  liis  wish  ami  luolests.  Tiic  dcri'iHlanls. 
who  were  lueiiibers  ol"  the  liOiiiaii  Catlidlic  (Miiirch  ai  Sin- 
siuawa  Mound,  known  as  SI.  Dominic's  ('hurcli,  (laiined 
that  the  church  buildinj;  was  originally  erected  by  Iniids 
and  materials  furnished  by  the  conjjji-egation.  and  tiial  it 
had  been  practically  under  the  control  of  trustees  chosen  by 
the  congregation  since  18GG ;  also  that  the  deed  to  the  bishop 
was  in  trust  for  the  congregation. 

The  court  held  that  the  original  deed  to  the  bishop  trom 
the  college  was  absolute,  and  conveyed  a  fee  sinii)le  title, 
leaving  nothing  in  the  congi-egation  or  the  trustees  thereof, 
and  that  they  had  no  interest  in  the  property.  XeitloM-  the 
congregation  nor  its  trustees  could  lawfully  tear  down  the 
church  building,  even  for  the  purpose  of  erecting  a  new  one, 
against  the  protest  of  the  bishop  who  held  the  legal  title, 
and  who  had  control  of  the  property  under  the  law  of  the 
church. 

The  association  (St.  Joseph's  Lithuanian  Catholic  Congre- 
gation) purchased  real  estate  for  the  puri)ose  of  erecting 
thereon  a  church  building,  the  title  being  taken  in  the  name 
of  certain  persons  as  trustees.  Snbsecpiently,  by  a  vote  of 
the  congregation,  the  title  of  the  property  was  transferred 
to  the  bishoj).  At  a  later  meeting  of  the  congregation  trus- 
tees were  selected  to  take  charge  of  the  property  and  were 
directed  to  i)rocnre  to  themselves  a  transfer  of  the  title  of 
any  property  in  which  the  society  was  interested,  and  which 
was  then  held  by  any  other  ])erson.  The  bishop  declined  to 
transfer  the  i)r()j»erty  to  these  new  trustees  and  an  action 
was  commenced  to  compel  a  conveyance.  It  was  held  that 
the  bishop,  by  taking  title  to  the  proi)erty,  became  a 
trustee  of  the  society  to  the  .same  extent,  and  with  the  .same 
pow^ers  as  the  trustees  named  in  the  original  dee<l.  There- 
fore the  bishoj)  was  only  a  depository  of  the  legal  title  of 
the  property,  holding  it  in  trust  for  the  congregation. 
The  plaintitts  were  entitled  to  a  decree  directing  the  bi.shoj) 
to  transfer  the  property  to  them  as  trustees  of  the  con- 
gregation, such  conveyaiui'  td  l»c  in  trn.st  for  the  purposes 


(kk;        tin:  cinil  law   am>  t\\\:  ciiukch 

spccilicil    ill    llic  (»rij;iiiiil    deed.      I\i"iii(/iiii;is   \     Ilohaii.   Ulil 

v.\.  i!i:;. 

A  l)isli(»i»  holds  the  title  Jis  a  iiiere  liustee.  The  Inist  in 
such  cjise  j^fives  to  the  trustee  ueither  interest  in  the  estate 
nor  power  to  control  it  ».i-  direct  its  nninagenient  in  any 
\\i\\ ;  it  creates  uo  duly  tor  llu*  trustee  to  perform  and  leaves 
nothing  to  his  discretion;  he  is  simply  the  passive  silent 
depository  of  the  legal  title  and  nothing  more.  ^lazaika  v 
ICrauezunas,  2.'W  ]*a.  138  cited  in  Carrick  v  Canevin,  r)5  J'a. 
Super.  Ct.  233,  243  Pa.  Sni>er.  Ct.  2S3;  see  the  question 
;ig;iin  in  Novicky  v  Krjiuc/umis,  245  l*a.  8G. 

Bishop,  When  Not  Liable  in  Damages.  In  Wardens  of  the 
Church  of  St.  Louis  v  Bhuic,  8  Rob.  (La.)  51,  it  was  held 
that  a  bishop  cannot  be  made  liable  in  damages  for  any  ex- 
l)ression  of  opinion  ;is  to  the  extent  of  his  ecclesiastical 
authority,  nor  for  any  act  or  omission  in  the  exercise  of  his 
si)iritual  functions.  Such  acts  or  omissions  violate  no 
legal  right,  nor  do  they  involve  any  dereliction  of  legal  duty 
or  obligations.  Courts  of  justice  enforce  civil  obligations 
only — not  spiritual  ones. 

Burial  Ground.  Land  enibrncing  about  fortj'  acres  was 
conveyed  to  the  bishop  for  a  burial  ground.  One  acre  was 
used  for  the  cemetery  and  the  other  was  used  as  farm  lands. 
It  was  held  that  the  part  not  actually  used  for  cemetery 
])urposes  was  subject  to  taxation.  Mulroy  v  Churchman, 
52  la.  2:J8. 

California  Missions.  According  to  all  the  Spanish  and 
Mexican  authorities,  the  missions  were  political  establish- 
ments, and  in  no  manner  connected  with  the  church.  The 
fact  that  monks  or  jjriests  were  at  the  head  of  these  insti- 
tutions ])roves  nothing  in  favor  of  the  claim  of  the  church 
to  universal  ownership  of  the  property. 

If  it  be  relied  on  that  a  ])riest  or  monk  had  go\ciniiient 
and  control  of  the  nussion,  the  answer  is  simply  that  they 
were  the  civil  governors;  and  although  tliey  combined  with 
the  iK)wer  of  civil  government  the  functicms  of  spiritual 
fathers,  this  was  only  the  more  effectually  to  carry  out  one 


KOMAN  CATHOLIC  CHUKCH  667 

of  the  objects  of  those  establishments,  which  was  to  convert 
and  Christianize  the  Indians.  Neither  the  missions  nor  the 
priests  of  the  missions  were  incorporated  into  the  general 
body  of  the  church,  nor  were  they  in  any  resi)ect  under  the 
control  or  direction  of  its  diocesan  ecclesiastics,  wliose  rule 
was  absolute  over  all  their  inferiors.  On  the  contrary,  the 
mission  establishments  arose  directh^  from  the  action  and 
authority  of  the  *;overnment  of  the  country;  laws  and  regu- 
lations were  made  for  them  by  its  legishitive  authority, 
without  referring  to  or  consulting  the  authority  of  the 
church,  and  tlie  lands  settled  by  them  were  not  conveyed  to 
anyone,  neither  to  priest  nor  neophyte,  but  remained  the 
property  of  the  government,  and  there  is  not  a  word  in  all  the 
decrees  and  acts  of  tlio  government  wliidi  would  even  sliow 
that  the  cLurch  building  devoted  to  worshij)  alone  ever  be- 
came the  property  of  tlie  church  corporate  until  the  decree 
of  sec-ularization  of  ls;>;5.     Nol)ili  v  Kcdnian,  G  Cal.  li-5. 

Catholic  Knights  of  Wisconsin.  The  Order  of  Catholic 
Knights  of  Wisconsin  was  organized  for  the  sole  benefit  of 
members  of  the  Konum  Catliolic  Church,  for  them  only  so 
long  as  they  remain  practical  Catholics.  The  decedent  was 
married  by  a  Protestant  minister,  and  was  thereupon,  ipso 
facto,  excommunicated  and  ceased  to  be  a  Catholic,  prac- 
tical or  otherwise.  Thereupon  all  liabilitj'  on  the  benefit 
contract  ceased,  and  expulsion  was  not  necessary.  Tlie  pro- 
visions of  the  contract  on  this  subject  were  self-executing. 
Mend>ership  in  the  society  was  purely-  voluntary,  and  the 
agreement  did  not  impose  any  religious  test  contrary  to  the 
provisions  of  the  constitution  of  Wisconsin.  Harry  v  Order 
of  Cntholic  Knights.  Wis.,  11 !»  Wis.  IIC'J. 

Catholic,  Relation  How  Determined.  Xo  power  save  that  of 
the  church  can  rightfully  declare  who  is  a  Catholic.  The 
question  is  i)urely  one  of  church  government  and  discipline, 
and  must  be  detei'mined  by  the  jiroper  ecclesiastical  author- 
ities. The  decision  of  the  chnrch  aniliorilics  is  tinal. 
Dwenger  v  Ceary,  li:?  Iml.  lOtl. 

Cemetery,  Exclusion  of  Non-Catholics.     The  society  owned 


(;(;,s        Tin-:  civil  law  and  'riiio  ciniKcn 

:i  (('iiiclci'v  in  (^iicciis  Connly.  TIk'  rules  and  doct riiios  of 
tlic  <!iincli  lorltid  IIk'  hiirial,  in  conscf  rated  ground,  of  the 
hody  of  one  who  was  nol  a  lionian  Callioiic,  or  who  was  a 
niend)er  of  the  .Masonic  frateniilv.  The  refusal  of  the  ceme- 
tery to  pei-niit  the  hui'ial  of  a  I'^reeniason.  althon^h  a  Ro- 
man Catholic,  in  this  cemetery  was  sustained  in  People  ex 
rel  ro]»pers  v  Trustees,  St.  Patrick's  Cathedral,  X.  Y.,  21 
llun.  (N.  V.)  1S4.  It  was  also  held  that  his  i-i;.,dit  to  burial 
therein  was  not  secured  by  a  paper  acknowledi,dn<;  the  re- 
ceil)t  of  a  sum  of  money  s]»ecitied  as  hein^  for  the  purchase 
money  of  the  jdot.  Ai)plicants  for  Iniiial  plots  in  (Jatholic 
cemeteries  are  ])resumed  to  know  the  regulations  of  the 
church  concerning  bui-ials,  such  as  the  exclusion  of  nou- 
('atholics  and  Freemasons. 

:McQuire  v  St.  Patrick's  Cathedral,  54  Hun  (N.  Y. )  207, 
involved  the  right  of  burial  in  a  lot  in  a  Roman  Catholic 
cemetery  under  a  receipt  acknowledging  the  payment  of  a 
stipulated  sum,  and  under  which  the  intestate's  wife  had 
already  been  buried  in  the  lot  described.  The  receipt  was 
held  to  convey  a  mere  revocable  license,  and  the  court  de- 
nied an  application  to  compel  the  cemetery  authorities  to 
permit  the  interment  of  the  intestate. 

Cemetery,  Suicide  Not  Entitled  to  Burial.  Land  was  con- 
veyed to  the  bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Fort  Wayne  for  a 
cemetery.  The  bishop  took  the  land  in  trust  as  a  bui-ying 
ground  for  the  Catholics  of  the  city.  The  congregation, 
with  the  cooi)eration  of  the  grantors,  caused  the  land  to  be 
laid  out  into  lots,  and  it  was  consecrated  and  set  apart 
according  to  the  ritual  and  principles  of  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church  for  tlie  burial  of  the  bodies  of  such  persons  as 
were  entitled  to  sepulture  according  to  the  rites  and  doc- 
trines of  the  church.  To  entitle  a  person  to  burial  in  this 
cemetery  he  must  liave  been  at  the  time  of  his  death  a  mem- 
ber of  the  church  in  full  communion,  and  must  have  per- 
formed all  of  his  church  duties.  A  person  who  committed 
suicide  was  not  entitled  to  burial  in  consecrated  ground. 
A  person  who  obtained  a  burial  lot  in  the  cemetery  sought 


ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  069 

to  bury  therein  the  body  of  his  son  \s  ho  liad  coininitted 
suicide.  Such  burial  was  resisted  by  the  church  authorities, 
who  brought  this  action  to  restrain  the  lot-owner  from  such 
use  of  the  lot  contrary  to  the  rules  of  the  church.  The 
church  authorities  decided  that  the  person  whose  burial 
was  sought  was  not  a  Catholic,  and  not  entitled  to  burial 
in  the  cemetery',  and  the  court  held  this  decision  final  ami 
conclusive.  The  power  of  making  lules  regulating  the  use 
of  the  cemetery  was  lodged  in  the  bishop  of  the  Diocese  of 
Fort  Wayne,  and  the  i)astor  of  St.  Mary's  Church.  The 
moment  this  cemetery  was  consecrate<l  it  came  under  the 
dominion  of  the  church.  It  was  held  that  the  churcli 
authorities,  including  the  bishop  and  pastor,  couhl  main- 
tain an  action  to  restrain  the  burial  of  the  suicide  in  con- 
secrated ground.     Dwengcr  v  (ioary,  11.".  Ind.  100. 

Congregation,  Relation  to  General  Church.  Congregations 
may  hold  Catholic  doctrines  just  as  other  denominations 
hold  Catholic  doctrines,  but  ecclesiastically  and  in  sight  of 
the  Ronmn  Catholic  Church,  they  have  no  existence;  they 
are  not  recognized  by  the  papal  authority.  Tlie  congrega- 
tion cannot  divorce  itself  from  the  church,  or  form  an  inde- 
pendent organization  and  retain  the  ownership  of  the  ]>rop- 
erty.  Dochkus  v  Lithuanian  Benefit  Society,  SL  Anthony, 
200  Pa.  St.  25. 

Corporate  Rights.  The  ((trixn-ate  existence  of  the  Koman 
Catholic  Church,  as  well  as  Ihe  posit  ion  occupied  by  the 
papacy,  has  always  been  recognized  by  tlie  government  of 
the  United  States. 

At  one  time  the  United  States  maintained  di])lomatic 
relations  with  the  Papal  States,  which  continued  up  to  the 
time  of  the  loss  of  the  temjtoral  jxiwer  of  the  papacy. 
Moore's  Digest  of  Int.  Law,  vol.  i.  \>\k  \'-W,  l.'.l.  INmkc  v 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  210  U.  S.  21Mi. 

English  Toleration.  The  testator  iKMiucatlied  the  rcsidnc 
of  his  personal  estate  to  tiiistc-cs,  to  be  used  for  tiie  ediica- 
tion  of  poor  children  in  the  Konian  Catholic  faith.  This 
bequest  was  held  void,  the  court  ob.serving  that   •'wliih*  the 


(17(1  'I'lll']  ("l\  II.   LAW    AM»   Till;   (III   KCII 

Ivoiii.'iii  ('iitliolic  icli^^ioii  lias  i-tMci\c(|  a  considcialtU'  dcj^rce 
ol' lolcration  l\v  the  statut(M>f  llu?  jUM'sciil  Kiii^  CJl  (Iro.  Ill, 
cliap.  152),  yet  there  is  a  i»rovisi(in  in  that  act  thai  all  dis- 
jtosilions  l)efore  considered  nnlawful  shall  continue  to  he 
and  he  deemed  so."  Tliere  is  no  donhl  a  disj)osition.  for  the 
purjiose  of  hrinj;in<;  nj>  and  edncating  cliildren  in  the  Koman 
Catholic  relijjion,  was  unlawful  before  that  time.  Cary  v 
Ahhot,  7  Ves.  dr.  (I':n<,M  VM). 

Fraternal  Beneficiary  Society.  The  Bohemian  Roman 
Catholic  Central  I'nion  of  the  I'nited  States  of  America  was 
fornied,  to  be  composed  ex(  lusively  of  members  of  the  Koman 
Catholic  Church.  Members  must  have  performed  the  duties 
required  by  the  church,  one  of  which  was  to  go  to  confes- 
sion and  receive  the  sacrament  of  the  holy  communion  every 
year  during  Easter  time.  A  member  did  not  receive  the 
sacrament  of  the  holy  communion  during  Easter  in  1890. 
He  admitted  the  neglect,  and  was  suspended  by  the  society, 
and  died  during  the  sus])ension.  By  the  laws  of  the  order, 
a  suspended  mend)er  lost  all  benefits  during  his  suspension. 
In  an  action  on  a  beneficiary  certificate  it  was  held  that 
the  suspension  was  within  the  ])owers  vested  in  the  society 
by  the  contract  of  membership ;  that  the  organization  of 
such  a  fraternal  society  was  not  inconsistent  with  any  prin- 
ciple of  religious  liberty;  that  the  suspended  member,  by 
violating  the  jtrovisions  of  the  contract,  had  forfeited  his 
right  to  the  benefits  intended  by  the  organization,  and  the 
action  was  not  maintainable  on  the  certificate.  Franta  v 
Bohemian  Roman  Catholic  Central  T'nion,  104  Mo.  oO-t. 

Independent  Corporation.  Powers.  The  society  was  organ- 
ized by  French  residents  for  the  ])urpose  of  having  a  Frwich 
church  of  the  Roman  Catholic  faith,  with  a  French  Koman 
Catholic  priest  as  pastor,  and  under  the  same  general  gov- 
ernment and  authority  as  other  Roman  Catholic  churches. 
The  society  was  duly  incorporated  and  adopted  a  constitu- 
tion. Before  the  incorporation,  and  before  the  building  of 
the  church,  the  voluntary  association  had  m;ide  ajiplication 
to  the  Roman  Catholic  bishop  at  Sprinulield  for  a  I'"ren<h 


ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  CTl 

priest  to  act  a«  tlieir  pastor.  This  ai)i»licali()ii  was  <l*'iikMl 
b}'  the  bisliop,  because  he  did  not  approve  the  establishineut 
of  another  Roman  Catliolic  church  at  North  Brooklicld.  The 
new  society  erected  a  churcli  and  again  applied  to  the  bishoj) 
for  the  appointment  of  a  priest,  but  this  application  was  also 
denied.  The  society  then  enj»aged  a  priest  on  its  own  account. 
Subsequent  to  the  settlement  of  the  pastor  the  bishoj)  noti- 
fied them  that  those  who  continued  to  attend  the  church 
would  be  excommunicated.  Some  members  returned  to  the 
established  church,  others  declined  to  attend  any  church, 
while  still  others  adhered  to  the  new  society  and  maintained 
services  there.  Subsequently  a  meeting  was  called  for  the 
pur])ose  of  revising  the  list  of  church  nunnbers.  At  this 
meeting  certain  names  were  crossed  otf  the  record.  At  the 
same  meeting  trustees  of  the  society  were  elected.  The 
former  trustees  atteni]>ted  to  close  the  church,  and  notifie<l 
the  pastor  that  his  services  would  no  longer  be  required. 
An  action  was  brought  by  the  new  trustees  against  the  old 
trustees  to  prevent  them  from  closing  the  church  and  pre- 
venting its  use  for  religious  services.  The  expulsion  of 
certain  members  on  the  revision  of  the  list  was  sustained. 
But  the  election  of  otilcers  at  the  meeting  at  which  the  list 
was  revised  was  held  to  be  irregular  for  the  reason  that  it 
was  not  within  the  terms  of  the  call  of  the  meeting.  It 
was  also  held  that  the  trustees  could  not  close  the  church 
because,  in  their  judgment,  to  keep  the  church  open  would 
be  to  defeat  the  ])urj)oses  for  which  the  association  was 
formed.  The  association  having  been  incor])oratt'd  under 
tlie  statute  ])roviding  therefor,  and  liaving  adopted  a  cou- 
stitution  without  any  ])rovision  as  to  llie  form  of  \\(trshi|i. 
it  becajne  an  in(lei)endcnt  society  not  subjcci  to  liic  jiii-is- 
diction  of  the  bishoj).  The  court  granted  a  decree  ])rr\(nt- 
ing  the  trustees  from  closing  the  rhurcli  building  ot  the 
association  against  any  religions  services  helil  for  tlie  pnl»li«' 
advancement  of  the  worshi]>  of  (Jod,  or  to  insure  religious 
instruction  on  Sunday,  by  any  members  of  the  association. 
Canadian  l\eligious  Association  v  rarineuter,  ISO  Ala.ss.  415. 


(iTl!  TIIM   (IN  II.    I, AW    AM»   '11 1  I :   (III    IMII 

Independent  Society,  St.  Anthony  Church.  'I'lic  conj^rcgH- 
lioii  worshijK'd  iiccordin;;  io  I  he  I'onn.'^  ;iimI  riles  of  the 
KoiMiiii  (':illi(>li(-  Clnircli,  Will  it  did  iiol  iidlici'e  to  and  was 
not  <'oniie(i(Ml  willi  the  ('cclcsiastiial  body  known  as  the 
Jvonian  Catholic  Clinich,  and  li;id  never  placCMl  ilscH'  by  any 
volnnlary  act  of  it.s  own  nndcr  the  po\\('r  of  the  head  of  the 
diocese  of  Die  climcli.  II  owned  propei'ly  wliich  ha<l  he(Mi 
acquired  willi  cont  rihntions  made  hy  llie  coiigregalion,  and 
(Mnj)loved  a  pastor  williont  any  kiiowledyc  tliar  Ik*  had  heeii 
assij;ned  by  the  archbislio|t. 

In  an  action  to  coinj)el  the  transfer  of  the  property  of  the 
church  to  the  archbishop  it  was  lield  that  the  <-oni"l  had  no 
authoi-ity  to  conip(d  sn(  h  a  transfer.  Dochkns  v  J^ilhiianian 
Benefit  Society  of  St.  Anthony,  206  Pa.  St.  25. 

Jesuit  Order.  ''The  Society  of  Jesus  is  a  religions  order 
founded  by  Ignatius  Loyola.  It  is  understood  to  be  com- 
posed of  missionaries  and  teaching  priests  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  faith.  As  we  umlerstand  it,  there  is  no  legal  in- 
corporated bod}',  but  the  ])riests  are  bound  only  by  their 
vows  of  poverty,  chastity,  and  obedience,  and  after  a  second 
novitiate,  by  a  fourth  vow,  re(iuiring  them  to  go  wherever 
the  poi)e  nmy  send  them  for  missionary  duty.  They  are 
governed  by  a  general,  and  the  society  has  been  estab- 
lished in  the  United  States  for  many  years."  Colennin  v 
O'Leary,  114  Ky.  ;J8S.  In  this  case,  considering  the  validity 
of  a  devise  to  the  society  of  land  to  be  selected  by  it,  at  a 
given  location,  for  purposes  of  education  or  religion,  the 
court  said  there  was  no  trustee  created  by  this  bequest  who 
can  be  made  subject  to  the  control  of  the  court,  and  com- 
pelled to  execute  the  ]n'ovisions  of  the  trust.  But  a  definite 
trustee  was  not  necessary  under  the  Kentucky  statute,  if  the 
objects  of  the  charity  were  sufficiently  definite.  It  was  held 
that  the  object  of  the  trust  was  too  indefinite;  that  in  case 
of  necessity  it  would  not  be  enforced  by  the  court  by  the 
appointment  of  a  trustee  or  otherwise.  The  bequest  was 
held  void. 

Ladies'  Club.    The  society,  intending  to  erect  a  new  hou.se 


ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  V>T.\ 

of  worship,  a  nuinber  of  its  nienibers  constituted  theniselves 
a  voluntary  and  unofficial  coniiiiittee  to  raise  IiiihIs  I'oi-  lliis 
purpose.  With  such  funds  they  puirluiscd  ccitaiu  re;il 
estate,  taking  a  convej'ance  to  one  of  liicir  nuniber,  who 
executed  a  declaration  of  trust,  in  wliirh  he  agreed  to  con- 
vey tlie  ]»r()i)erty  to  tlie  bisliop  on  receiving  the  amount  von- 
tributed  tlierefor  by  tlu'  coniniittee.  A  club  composed  of 
ladies  of  the  society  raised  funds  either  foi-  the  spccitic 
purpose  of  building  a  new  church  or  for  sucli  otiicr  spccitic 
church  purpose  as  the  club  members  should  determine  ui)on. 
The  club  united  with  the  men's  committee  in  purchasing  the 
property  in  question,  and  neither  the  club  nor  the  com- 
mittee rejiresented  the  bishop  or  the  society.  Subsecpiently 
the  ladies'  club  obtained  from  the  trustee  a  half  iiitcicst  in 
the  proi)erty  purchased.  The  church  e<lifice  was  not  erected 
on  this  land,  but  on  another  lot.  The  half  interest  ac(piired 
by  the  ladies'  club  was  conveyed  to  the  bishop,  the  plaintitl'. 
In  an  action  by  tlie  bisliop  to  recover  the  other  half  interest 
which  was  still  retained  by  the  trustee  it  was  held  that  the 
bislio])  was  not  entitled  to  recover,  for  the  reason  that  the 
amount  contributed  by  the  committee  in  the  iturdiasc  of  the 
lot  had  not  been  ]»aid  to  them.    ICis  v  Croze,  1 1!>  Mich.  (I'J. 

Louisiana  Corporation,  Powers  of  Local  Officers.  The  war- 
dens of  the  society  tixed  the  compensation  of  a  curate,  an<l 
it  was  paid  for  more  than  a  j-ear,  when  tlu'  resolution  tixiiig 
the  compensation  was  rescinded  by  the  wai-dcus.  and  notice 
given  accordingly  to  the  curate  that  at  a  specitied  time  his 
comi)ensation  would  cease.  The  curate  seems  to  have  con- 
tinued his  relations,  or  attempted  to  do  so,  in  ()])position  to 
the  action  of  the  wardens.  It  was  held  that  the  chnrch 
wardens  were,  in  theii-  <-oi-porat(>  capacity,  the  legal  (nvners 
of  the  property  which  the  act  of  incoi|»(>ra(  ion  aulhori/cd 
them  to  h(dd,  to  be  used  for  the  pniposes  specitied  in  the 
charter.  They  were  the  sole  temporal  administrators,  and 
could  not  be  controlhMJ  l»\  llic  cleigv  in  ilieir  adininisi  ral  inn. 
They  were  res])onsible  to  the  congregation  only,  ^\llo  might 
choo.sc  others,  if  those  in  authorilv  shonid  misu.se  or  abuse 


(171  Tlir:  r|\  IL   LAW   AM>  Till;  (III   Krii 

llu'  powtTs  coiitViTcd  l»y  tlir  Lcj^ishil  iirr.  Tlic  couit  IiiiiIkt 
said  that  ncitlicr  llu;  popo  nor  any  bislio])  liad,  within  this 
State,  any  authority  except  a  spiiitual  one;  and  as  courts 
of  justice  sit  to  enforce  civil  olilij^Mtions  only,  they  never 
attempt  to  coerce  the  performance  of  those  of  a  spiritual 
character.  Churcli  of  St.  Francis,  I'ointe  ('oui)ee  v  Ma  it  in. 
4  Kob.  (La.)  (12. 

Mexico.  Tlie  right  of  the  jtroitcily  in  fee  l)<'iii«j  in  the 
King,  as  long  as  his  dominion  was  acknowledged  in  Amer- 
ica, after  the  Revolution,  was  in  the  Mexican  government  as 
successor  to  the  former  sovereign  power,  the  clerg\-  being 
]>ermitted  only  the  enjoyment  of  the  use.  The  church  in 
^Mexico  seems  to  have  been  entirely  under  the  control  of  the 
political  authority;  so  much  so  that  the  ceremonies  and  reli- 
gious festivals  were  regulated  by  law.  Blair  v  Odin,  3  Tex. 
Rep.  28S. 

Mexico  and  Texas.  Trior  to  the  Revolution  of  ISotJ  the 
Catholic  was  the  established  religion  of  the  republic  of 
]\Iexico,  and  all  citizens  of  Texas  were  required  to  conform 
to  the  teachings  of  that  church.  It  was  suppoited  by  the 
government,  and,  by  taxation,  the  citizens  were  compelled 
to  contribute  thereto.  One  of  the  charges  made  against  the 
republic  of  Mexico  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was. 
"It  denies  us  the  right  of  worshiping  the  Almighty  according 
to  the  dictates  of  our  conscience  by  the  support  of  a  na- 
tional religion,  calculated  to  i)romote  the  temporal  interest 
of  its  human  functionaries  rather  than  the  glory  of  the  true 
and  living  God.''  The  third  division  of  the  Declaration  of 
liights  in  the  Constitution  of  the  re])ublic  of  Texas,  reads 
as  follows:  "No  preference  shall  be  given  by  law  to  any 
religious  denomination  or  mode  of  worshij)  over  another, 
but  every  person  shall  be  permitted  to  worship  (lod  accord- 
ing to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience."  The  constitu- 
tion of  the  State  of  Texas  framed  in  1845,  contains  prac- 
tically the  same  j)rovision  as  is  now  embraced  in  the  consti- 
tution of  this  State  in  these  words :  "Sec.  4.  All  men  have 
a  natural  and  indefeasible  right  to  worship  ChxI  according 


ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCU  <;Tr) 

to  the  dictates  of  their  own  conscience;  no  man  shall  be 
compelled  to  attend,  erect,  or  suj)i)oit  any  place  of  worship, 
or  to  maintain  any  ministry  against  his  own  consent." 
Thus  we  see  that  the  provision  in  our  constitution  was  a 
protest  against  the  policy  of  Mexico  in  establishing  and 
maintaining  a  church  of  state,  and  comi)elling  con- 
formity thereto,  and  was  intended  to  guard  against  any 
such  action  in  the  future.  Church  v  Bullock,  KMl  S.  W. 
(Tex.)  115. 

Minority's  Right.  It  was  held  that  a  minority  conld  not 
retain  possession  of  the  church  pi'operty  for  the  i)uri»ose  of 
comi)elling  the  majority  to  recognize  the  minority  as  mem- 
bers of  the  cor])oration.  St.  Andrews  v  Shaughnessy,  r»;> 
Xei).  7!):;. 

Nebraska,  Status  of  Church.  Considering  whether  title  to 
certain  local  church  jjrojterty  was  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  the  court  in  Bonacum  v  Mnrithy,  71  Xeb.  4S7,  said. 
"That  church  is  not,  in  contemplation  of  the  laws  of  Ne- 
braska, a  corj)oration  or  a  partnership,  or  a  legal  entity  of 
anj'  sort,  and  does  not  claim  so  to  be.  It  is  a  hierarchy  com- 
posed of  a  series  of  clerical  dignitaries  of  various  ranks  and 
degrees,  scattered  over  the  whole  world,  and  deriving  their 
l)ower  and  imj)ortance  from  the  pajjal  court  at  Rome,  to 
whom  they  owe  allegiance,  and  from  whom  tliey  are  liable 
at  any  time  to  sutler  degradation.  That  court  claims  to  be 
an  in<le])endent  sovereign  power,  a  j)()litical  as  well  as  an 
ecclesiastical  state,  having  universal  dominion,  superior  to 
all  other  princii»alities  and  powers  of  whatever  (lescriptiun 
and  wherever  situated.  As  such  it  can  acipiire  territoiial 
rights  in  Nebraska,  if  at  all,  only  with  the  consent  of  its 
Legislature,  by  treaty  with  the  government  at  Washington." 

New  York,  Incorporation,  Effect.  The  act  of  ISC:'.,  chap. 
45,  amending  the  religions  coi-]t()i-ations  act  of  1S1:5  as  to 
Roman  Catholic  churches,  authorized  the  archbishop,  tin* 
vicar-general,  and  the  i)astor  of  a  church,  together  with  two 
other  persons  to  be  seku  ted  by  them,  to  make  and  tile  a  <fri  i  f 
icate  of  incorjioration  and  therein  designate  the  title  of  the 


(i7<;  Tin;  <M\II.   I, AW    ANh  'I'lli:   (III    KCII 

cliiircli,  :iii(|  (IcchiictI  lli;il  llic  prrsuiis  si;;iiiii^  llic  ci-rl  ilicale 
iiixl  llicir  successors  slionid  Ik*  :i  ImxIv  <'<>rj»<)r;il«*  I),v  llic  niiiiu; 
designaliMl  (lit'ivin.  Tht-  Conrl  of  Appeals  in  I'coplc's  Bank  v 
St.  Anthony's  Roman  Catholic  Clinnli,  lO't  N.  V.  512,  held 
that  the  trustees  did  not  heconie  a  corporation,  but  that  the 
corporation  was  composed  of  the  mend)er.s  of  the  church 
and  congrej;ation,  the  trustees  being  simply  the  governing 
body  of  the  corporation.  Cei-tificates  of  indebtedness  or 
promissory  notes  given  for  loans  of  money  to  the  society  and 
signed  by  the  president,  secretary,  and  treasiirer  of  the 
board  of  trustees,  the  latter  being  also  pastor,  without  any 
evidence  of  action  by  the  board  as  a  body  authorizing  the 
issue  of  such  notes  and  certificates,  were  held  not  to  be  bind- 
ing on  the  corpoj-ation. 

Orphan  Asylum,  Not  a  Common  School.  In  People  ex  rel 
the  Ivoman  Catholic  Orphan  Asylum  v  Board  of  Education, 
18  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  400,  it  was  held  that  the  Roman  Catholic 
Orphan  Asjlum  of  Brooklyn  was  not  a  common  school 
under  art.  9  of  the  constitution,  and  therefore  was  not 
entitled  to  share  in  the  revenues  of  the  common  school  fund. 
See  Sargent  v  Board  of  Education,  Rochester,  177  N.  Y.  317, 
cited  in  article  on  Sectarian  Institution. 

Parish  Register.  The  register  of  a  parish  of  a  Catholic 
Church  kei)t  as  required  by  the  rules  and  laws  of  the  churih, 
when  produced  is  admissible  in  evidence;  and  it  is  of  such 
a  public  nature  that  its  contents  may  be  proved  by  an  imme- 
diate copy  duly  verified.  Hancock  v  Supreme  Council  Cath- 
olic Benevolent  Legion,  (»7  N.  J.  Law,  G14. 

Pennsylvania,  Early  Toleration.  In  Magill  v  Brown,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  S,!)r)2  (U.  S.  Cir.  Ct.  I'a.)  (Brightly  N.  P.  :U7i, 
which  involved  the  validity  of  bequests  to  numerous  Quaker 
societies.  Judge  Baldwin,  in  the  course  of  his  opinion,  said: 
"In  1733-34  Governor  Gordon  informed  the  council  that  a 
house  had  been  erected  in  Walnut  Street  for  the  exercise 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  religion,  in  which  mass  was  openly 
celebrated  contrary  to  the  laws  of  England,  particularly 
to  the  statute  of  12  Will.  Ill,  which  extended  to  the  colonies. 


KOMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  (177 

The  council  were  of  dirterent  opinion,  and  declared  thai  ilic 
Catholics  were  protected  by  the  charter  of  privilege^s  and  the 
law  concerning  liberty  of  conscience,  but  thej-  referred  the 
subject  to  the  governor,  that  he  might  consult  his  superiors 
at  home.  No  othei"  proceedings,  ho\Aever,  took  i)lace."  This 
opinion  of  tiie  council  accords  with  the  declai-ation  of 
William  JVnn  to  the  members  of  the  Assembly  in  1701  tiiai 
he  had  justly  given  privileges  and  precedency  of  property  as 
the  bulwark  to  secure  the  other.  It  was  a  rule  of  property, 
and  the  basis  of  the  usage  and  common  law  of  the  state. 
The  0])inion  of  the  council  was  the  practical  ex]»osition  of 
the  charter,  as  understood  and  acknowledged,  ol  which  there 
cannot  be  a  stronger  case  than  the  one  that  occurred. 

Philippine  Islands.  The  status  of  the  church  in  the  Islands 
is  considered  in  Barline  v  Kamirez,  7  Philippines  41. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  a  legal  personality  and 
the  ca[>acity  to  hold  ])ro]ierty  in  the  insular  i)ossessions  of 
the  United  States,  and  this  right  is  not  affected  by  the  fact 
that  the  property  was  acquired  by  gifts  or  from  the  public 
funds.  Santos  v  Roman  Catholic  Church,  '2V2  U.  S.  4t):5. 
See  also  Ponce  v  Roman  Catholic  (Miurch,  210  U.  S.  2JM> 
and  Barlin  v  Ramirez,  7  Philippines  41. 

Pope's  Position  Under  International  Law.  The  Holy  See 
still  occui)ies  a  recognized  position  in  international  law,  of 
which  the  courts  must  take  judicial  iiotice. 

"The  Pope,  tliough  deju-ived  of  the  territorial  dominion 
which  he  formerly  enjoyed,  holds,  as  sovereign  i)ontiH"  and 
head  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  an  exceptional  i)osi 
tion.  Though  in  default  of  territory,  he  is  not  a  t(Mii|>()r;il 
sovereign,  he  is  in  nuiny  resijects  treated  as  such.  He  has 
the  right  of  active  and  passive  legation,  and  his  envoys  of 
the  first  class,  his  apostolic  nuncios,  are  sjjecially  privileged. 
Nevertheless,  he  does  not  make  war,  and  the  conventions 
which  he  concludes  with  states  are  not  called  treaties  but 
concordats.  His  relations  with  the  kingdom  of  Italy  mpc 
governed,  unilaterally,  by  the  Italian  law  of  May  l:'..  1S71, 
called  'the  law  of  guarantees,'  against   which   Pius  I  .\  and 


(ITS        'nil':  ('i\  iL  LAW  AM*  I'lii;  <iii  i:<ii 

I.«'o  XIII  li;iv('  not  (('iiscd  lo  pfotost."  1  Moore's  Di;;.  :'/.», 
IVmcc  V  IJoniim  ('atliolic  Clinrch,  210  U.  S.  21M). 

Porto  Rico.  By  tlio  SpMiiisli  l;iw.  from  the  earliest  moment 
(>r  the  setlleiiMMil  of  tlic  isliind  to  the  present  time,  the  cor- 
jmnite  existence  of  the  Cntholio  rinirch  has  been  recognizx'd. 
The  Roman  Tatholic  riuirch  h;is  been  recojjnized  as  possess- 
ing;- lej;;il  ]»erson;ilily  by  the  Ti<'aty  of  Paris  willi  S])ain  of 
1S()8,  ;in<l  its  ]»ro|»(Mly  rif^hts  solemnly  safej^uarded.  In  so 
(loin*;-  the  treaty  followed  the  recojinized  rule  of  interna- 
tional law  which  wonld  have  i»rotec1ed  the  ])roy)erty  of  the 
chnrch  in  Porto  Eico  snbseqnent  to  the  cession.  The  juristic 
personality  of  the  Ronian  Catholic  Church  and  its  o^\^ler- 
ship  of  j>roi)erty  was  formally  recognized  by  the  concordats 
between  Sj)ain  and  the  papacy,  and  by  the  Spanish  laws  from 
the  beuinnino-  of  settlements  in  the  Indies.  Such  recogni- 
tion has  also  been  accorded  the  church  by  all  systems  of 
European  law  from  the  fourth  century  of  the  Christian  era. 
The  fact  that  the  municipality  may  have  furnished  some 
of  the  funds  for  building  or  repairing  the  churches  cannot 
attect  the  title  of  the  Roman  Catholic  church  to  whom  such 
funds  were  thus  irrevocably  donated,  and  by  whom  these 
temples  were  erected  and  dedicated  to  religious  uses.  Ponce 
V  Roman  Catholic  Church.  210  V.  S.  206. 

Priest.  The  relation  between  a  bishop  and  a  priest  is 
not  that  of  master  and  servant  but  that  of  an  ecclesias- 
tical superior  and  inferior.     Baxter  v  McDonnell,  ir>.')  X.  Y. 

Priest,  Action  Against  for  Slander.  A  Roman  C.itholie  priest 
told  his  congregation  from  the  ])ul].it  that  a  cixii  marriage 
by  a  ])liysician  who  was  <liv(U'ce(l  from  his  tirst  wife,  excom- 
municated him  from  the  church;  that  it  should  debar  him 
from  employment  as  a  physician  by  the  nuMnbers  of  the 
jiarish  under  ])enalty  of  loss  of  the  ministrations  and  sacra- 
ments of  the  church  in  case  of  their  illness,  and  that  any- 
one needing  the  priest  should  not  send  for  liini  when  the 
physician  w;is  i»rcsent,  as  he  did  not  wish  to  be  undei*  the 
sjime  roof.     It  was  held  that  the  words  might  properly  be 


ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  079 

submitted  to  a  jury  as  actionable  \>tv  .se,  witlioiit  an  aver- 
ment of  special  <laniai;e.    Morasse  v  Broclai,  ir>l  Mass.  507. 

Priest's  Authority.  A  Catiiolic  priest  was  called  to  au  alnis- 
liouse  to  administer  a  sacrament  of  penance  to  an  inmate, 
who  was  a  Roman  Catholic  and  believed  the  sacrament 
essential  to  her,  and  had  requested  him  to  administer  it. 
Such  administering?  required  entire  secrecy  between  the  de 
fendant  and  the  sick  person.  The  keejjer's  wife,  who  was 
])resent,  was  requested  to  leave  the  room  but  refused,  and 
was  thereupou  ejected  by  the  priest,  he  using  only  sucii 
force  as  was  necessary  for  that  j)nrpose.  In  an  aciion 
against  the  i)riest  for  the  assault  it  was  heUl  that  he  was 
only  a  visitor  and  had  no  control  of  the  room,  and  that  his 
priestly  office  gave  him  no  authority  to  exclude  any  person 
therefrom.     Coojter  v  McKenna,  124  Mass.  284. 

Priest,  Bishop's  Power  of  Removal.  By  the  laws  and  cus- 
toms of  the  Roman  Catholic  church  in  the  United  States  a 
])riest  is  liable  to  be  removed  from  the  charge  of  a  congrega- 
tion at  the  pleasure  of  his  bishop,  without  trial.  He  cannot, 
how'ever,  be  suspended  from  his  jtriestly  functions  without 
specific  accusation  and  trial.  The  i)astoral  relation  is 
neither  created  nor  dissolved  by  agreement  between  the 
l)riest  and  congregation — the  bishop  apj)oints  or  removes  the 
she])herd  as  he  deems  for  the  ]>riest's  good  or  for  the  inter- 
est of  the  flock.  Removal  is  the  exercise  of  episcopal  author- 
ity according  to  the  bishop's  judgment.  It  may  be  without 
snpj)Osition  of  wrong,  and  it  leaves  the  prie.st  in  the  same 
jiosition  as  all  other  priests  who  are  without  employment. 
Suspension  is  a  judicial  act  based  on  something  which  calls 
for  such  sentence.     Stack  v  O'llara,  !)S  I'a.  2i:i. 

Priest,  Expulsion.  In  St.  N'inceut's  ['arish  v  Muri»liy,  S.'? 
Neb.  (!•')(),  the  court  declined  to  consider  whether  a  juiest 
had  been  legally  excommunicated  and  exjtelled  from  the 
church,  the  (pieslion  being  one  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction 
only,  and  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  ii  court  of  equity. 

Priest,  Maintaining  Order  at  Meetings.  The  action  of  the 
priest   in    charge   of  a   religious  .service   in   attempting   to 


(;s(>        'rill':  cin  il  law  .wh  'riii;  cni  i.-cn 

i('iii(»\c  :i  pcisoii  \\li(»  (lishirlicd  llic  inccliiig  by  (leiiiiiiHliiig 
ail  exi»lan;ili<>ii  (»!  a  i-eferenco  in  llic  sermon  was  sustained, 
and  it  was  licld  lliat  the  priest  was  not  liable  in  an  action  for 
dania};es  as  for  an  assault.    Sec  next  note. 

Priest,  Power  to  Preserve  Order  in  Church  Services.  "In 
Catholic  in('('lin<2;s  it  is  ai)|»ro]M-iate  that  the  j)riest,  as  the 
presiding  ollicei-  of  the  meeting,  should  j>reserve  onler  and 
rebuke  all  violations  of  it."     Wall  v  J^e,  34-  N.  Y.  141. 

Priest,  Not  Bishop's  Agent.  The  jtastor  borrowed  money 
from  the  jdaintilV  and  <»lhers,  under  contract  of  repayment 
in  the  fcuni  of  deposit  books  in  the  name  of  the  church, 
which  was  not  incor])orated  and  had  no  power  to  ac(piire 
or  hold  property.  The  money  received  from  the  dej)ositors 
was  mingled  with  other  church  revenues  and  constituted  a 
common  fund,  used  for  general  church  pur]»oses.  The  bishop 
held  the  legal  title  to  all  the  real  i)r(iperty.  It  was  held 
that  the  pastor  was  not  the  agent  of  the  bishop  in  financial 
affairs  without  express  authority.  In  this  case  it  was  held 
that  the  bi.shop  was  not  liable  for  the  debt  contracted  by  the 
pastor.    Leahey  v  Williams,  141  Mass.  345. 

Priest,  Obligation.  Removal  of  a  ])riest  by  the  bishop  of  his 
diocese  was  sustained.  The  ]>riest  at  his  ordination  obli- 
gated himself  as  follows:  "I  promise  and  swear  that  I  will 
sei-ve  the  missions  of  the  Diocese  of  Philadeliihia  under  the 
obedience  of  the  ordinary  forever  in  perpetmini.  so  help  me 
God,  and  these  his  Holy  Gospels."  Toward  the  end  of  the 
ceremony  he  placed  his  hands  in  those  of  the  bishop,  who 
then  asked  him,  "Do  vou  promise  to  me  and  my  successors 
obedience  and  reverence?"  and  he  answered,  "I  do  promise 
it."  The  law  of  the  church  authorized  the  bishop  to  remove 
a  priest,  but  such  removal  did  not  amount  to  a  suspension 
of  his  priestly  functions.    Stack  v  O'Hara,  !KS  I'a.  213. 

Priest,  Removal  without  Notice.  The  priest  in  charge  of 
the  society  was  removed  by  the  bishop  without  any  accusa- 
tion or  hearing,  and  was  not  assigned  to  any  other  parish. 
As  priest  he  received  no  stated  salary,  but  was  entitled  to 
the  pew  rents,  Sunday  collections,  subscriptions,  and  offer- 


ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  (iSl 

ings.  His  profession  and  these  sources  of  inioiiie  were 
deemed  to  be  property  of  which  he  could  not  be  deprived 
by  tlie  summary  order  of  the  bishoj)  without  an  oj)portunity 
to  be  heard.  It  was  held  that  his  removal  as  pastor  of  the 
church,  and  also  the  prohibition  and  disfranchisement  for- 
bidding him  to  exercise  any  priestly  functions  in  Williams- 
port,  were  unlawful.  O'Hara  v  Stack,  !K)  l*a.  St.  477.  See 
98  Pa.  St.  213,  where  this  case  is  explained. 

Priest's  Right  of  Action  against  Bishop.  No  suit  can  be 
maintained  by  a  priest  of  a  Catholic  church  against  his 
bishop  for  removing  him  from  his  office  of  priest,  the  civil 
courts  in  such  cases  having  no  authority  to  inquire  as  to  the 
rightfulness  of  ecclesiastical  decisions.  O'Donovan  v  Chat- 
ard,  97  Ind.  421. 

Priest,  Salary.  In  Twigg  v  Sheehan,  104  I*a.  493,  it  was 
held  that  no  action  lies  in  favor  of  a  Roman  Catholic  i)riest 
against  his  bishop  for  salaiy  or  support  during  a  i)eriod  in 
which  the  bisho])  refused  to  assign  him  a  charge. 

Property,  How  Held.  The  canons  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  provide  and  require  that  the  title  to  the  property 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  congregation  which  is  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Roman  Catholic  bishoj)  of  the  diocese  in 
which  the  congregation  has  its  jtlace  of  woi'shi]),  must  be  in 
the  ordinary,  or  in  the  bislio])  of  jlic  diocese.  Krauczunas  v 
Hoban,  221  Vn.  2\l\. 

If  a  congregation  is  formed  tor  I  lie  jmrpose  of  religious 
worship  according  to  the  faith  and  rites  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  church,  has  accepted  the  pastor  assigned  to  it  by 
I  lie  archbishop  of  the  diocese,  has  j)laced  itself  under  the 
authority  of  the  archbishop,  and  submitted  itself  to  his 
authority  in  all  ecclesiastical  matters,  the  title  to  its  i)i-op- 
erty  must  be  taken  and  held  as  ]»rovided  by  the  canons  of 
the  Roman  Catholi<'  Chui-ch.  The  i>r()p(M-ty  accpiired  by  the 
congregation  under  such  circumstances  is  the  ]>i-operty  of 
the  church,  and  is  subject  to  its  coiifi-ol,  antl  imist  be  held 
in  the  manner  directed  by  its  laws.  Dochkiis  v  iatliuaiiiau 
Benetit  Society  of  St.  Anthony,  2(M;  Pa.  St.  2;"). 


dSL'  Till':  ('I\  IL   LAW   AM>  Tin:  ("IJIIfCIl 

'riic  cjiiiniis,  (Iccrc'cs,  and  iiiles  of  the  Koiiiaii  ('allujlic 
("ImikIi  Ioi-  (lie  DioccHe  of  Cincinnati  required  all  jn-operty 
held  and  used  f'oi-  ('cclcsiasl ical  jjui'itoses  to  he  conveyed  to 
I  lie  hislioj)  or  arciibishoj)  of  llie  diocese  by  name,  his  heirs 
or  assijijns  forever,  to  be  held  by  liini  in  trnut  for  the  usch  for 
wliicli  it  was  ac(|nired.    IVIannix  v  rni-cell,  4(1  Ohio  St.  lOU. 

Property  Eight.  The  Konian  Calholic  Church  has  been 
recognized  as  possessing  a  legal  personality  and  the  capacity 
to  take  and  accjuii-e  ])i-operty  since  the  time  of  the  emperor 
Coustantine.  See  the  J^aw  of  Coustautiue  of  321  to  that 
effect,  cited  in  Justinian's  Code. 

The  strictest  ])r()]iibiti()n  against  alienating  the  property 
of  the  church  exists  in  that  code,  and  it  provides  that  the 
alienation  of  church  property  shall  not  take  place,  even 
with  the  assent  of  all  the  representatives  of  the  church, 
since  these  rights  "belong  to  the  church,"  and  the  church 
is  the  mother  of  religion  ;  and  as  faith  is  perpetual,  its  patri- 
mony must  be  presei'ved  in  its  entirety  perpetually. 

In  his  history  of  Latin  Christianity  (vol.  1,  p.  507)  Dean 
Milman  says:  "The  Christian  churches  succeeded  to  that 
sanctity  which  the  ancient  law  had  attributed  to  the  tem- 
ples; as  soon  as  they  were  consecrated  they  became  public 
property,  and  could  not  be  alienated  to  any  other  use.  The 
ground  itself  was  hallowed,  and  remained  so  even  after  the 
temple  had  been  destroyed.  This  was  an  axiom  of  the 
heathen  Papinian.  Gifts  to  temples  were  alike  inalienable, 
nor  could  they  be  pledged  ;  the  exception  in  the  Justinian 
Code  betrays  at  once  the  decline  of  the  Koman  j)ower,  and 
the  silent  progress  of  Christian  luinianity.  They  could  be 
sold  or  i)ledged  for  the  redemption  of  ca])tives,  a  purpose 
which  the  old  IJoman  law  would  have  disdained  to  contem- 
plate." 

And  Milman  also  jtoints  out  that  in  the  barbarian  codes 
most  sweeping  provisions  are  found,  recognizing  the  right 
of  the  church  to  acquire  property  and  its  inalienability 
when  acquired.  Church  property  everywhere  remained  un- 
touched bv  the  rude  hands  of  iuvadius  barbariaus.     Tres- 


ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  08^ 

pass  upou  or  interference  with  sucli  property  \v;is  severely 
punished,  and  gradually  it  became  exenjj>ted  from  laxatiou. 
Ponce  V  Roman  Catholic  Church,  210  U.  S.  290. 

Providence  Hospital.  This  ho.spital  was  incorporated  by 
Congress  in  18()4,  and  was  under  the  general  auspices  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  the  title  to  its  property  being  held 
by  the  Sisters  of  Charity  of  Ennnitsburg,  Maryland.  In 
1897  Congress  approi)riated  funds  to  be  expended  nndei- 
the  direction  of  the  commissioners  of  the  District  of  Co- 
lumbia in  the  erection  of  two  isolating  buildings  in  connec- 
tion with  two  hospitals.  Under  this  act  the  commissioners 
and  the  authorities  of  the  Providence  Hospital  made  an 
agreement  for  the  erection  of  an  isolating  building  on  tlu' 
hospital  grounds.  It  was  held  that  this  agreement  did  not 
violate  the  provision  of  the  federal  constitution  res])ecting 
the  establishment  of  religion.  The  incorporating  act  did 
not  refer  to  any  religious  belief  or  ecclesiastical  connec- 
tion, and  the  court  remarked  that  no  inquiry  could  be  imule 
into  the  belief  of  the  incoritorators  on  religions  matters. 
It  was  a  secular  corporation,  though  managed  by  persons 
who  hold  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Roman  Catholic  cluirch. 
Bradfield  v  Roberts,  175  l^  S.  291. 

Rector,  Ratifying  Acts.  A  contract  for  labor  and  mate- 
rials in  the  erection  of  a  chnrcli  and  rectory  by  the  society 
was  made  in  the  name  of  the  trustees,  bnt  was,  in  fact, 
signed  only  by  the  rector.  A  subsequent  contract  was  also 
made  in  i)ractically  the  same  form,  that  is,  in  the  name  of 
the  corjxjration,  but  signed  only  by  the  rector.  Snbse 
(luently  the  church  gave  a  mortgage  on  its  jtropertj'  to  raise 
money.  This  mortgage  was  signed  by  the  ])resident  and 
secretary  of  the  board  of  Irustees,  and  authenticate<l  by  the 
rector  with  the  seal  of  the  corporation.  The  mortgage  was 
authorized  by  the  Sui)reme  Court.  The  ])r()ceeds  of  the  mort- 
gage were  deposited  in  a  b;iidc  in  the  name  of  the  rector,  and 
the  money  was  drawn  out  by  him  from  time  to  time.  ;iiid 
used  in  ])art  on  ]);iyments  on  the  contracts.  The  society  w.is 
<leemed  to  have  knowledge  of  the  varions  tran.saclions  by  the 


r»84       TnrlnvrL  law  and  'iiii:  cihikii 

I'cclol',  :iliil  to  liiiNC  :illl  li(iri/,c(l  oi'  iMtilM'il  the  roiihMt  Is  iikmIc 
I»y  liiiii.  lie  \s;is  llic  jij^ciil  (»!  llic  <or|»()r;i  I  i(Mi,  iiml  it  was 
ImhiihI  by  his  ads.  Coiuloii  v  Climtli  ol'  Si.  Aiii^nsl  inc,  1  I'J 
A  PI..  Div.  (X.  Y.)  IflS. 

St.  Annes  Catholic  Apostolic  and  Roman  Church,  Detroit. 
Michigan.  This  was  an  aiicicnl  J'rcnch  p.irish  oi-ganized 
aicordiiiy;  to  the  iiiclhods  ol"  the  (lallicaii  Cliiircli,  whicli 
elected  lay  trnslfcs  as  iiiaiiagcis  of  its  1(*iiij)oralilit*s.  Tiic 
treatj^  of  Paris  of  MVt'A  ii'couiiizcd  all  these  old  orgaiii/.a- 
tions  as  entitled  to  protection,  and  the  act  of  1S()7  was 
plaiidy  designed  to  enable  the  ])arish  to  obtain  i-ecord  evi- 
dence of  its  cor[)orate  const  it  nt  ion  nnder  the  American 
local  government.  The  i>arish  has  been  since  atlirmativelj' 
recognized  by  Congress,  by  the  treaty  making  power,  and 
b}'  the  State  as  well  as  Territorial  Legislatnre  as  owning 
laud  in  Detroit  and  elsewhere.  The  governor  and  judges 
conveyed  to  the  corporation  at  ditterent  times  tract.s  of  land, 
iiu'luding  the  land  in  (picstiou  with  various  restrictions  as 
to  occupancy  and  municipal  rights.  Cicotte  v  Anciau.x,  53 
Mich.  227. 

Sexton's  Salary.  The  church  was  held  liable  for  the  salary 
of  the  sexton  employed  by  the  majority  of  the  trustees,  of 
whom  the  ymest  in  charge  was  one,  and  the  liability  of  the 
churcli  was  not  allected  by  the  fact  that  the  ladies  of  the 
altar  had  agreed  to  ]>ay  one  half  of  the  salary.  St.  Patrick's 
V  Abst,  7(>  111.  IT)!'. 

Sisters  of  St.  Fi'ancis.  About  1875  the  su])erioress  of  the 
Convent  of  the  Sisters  of  St.  Francis,  whicli  had  been  located 
in  Gernuuiy,  with  some  thirty  of  the  Sisters,  came  to  Iowa 
City  for  the  j)urj)Ose  of  establishing  a  convent  there.  Need- 
ing additional  accommodations  to  those  at  first  used  the  par- 
ish priest  contributed  |500  for  enlarged  facilities,  paying 
the  money  to  the  su])erioi'ess  on  condition  that  it  should 
be  repaid  if  the  society  should  abandon  its  purpose  to  estab- 
lish a  convent,  or  if  its  work  should  be  given  np.  The  con- 
tract was  made  with  the  su]>erioress  as  the  agent  of  the 
society.     The  project   to  establish   a   convent  having  been 


RO^IAX   CATIIOIJC  cmKCH  085 

abandoned,  llic  piicsl  hnniglil  an  adion  ai;ains(  the  snpfi- 
riorcss  I'oi-  llie  money  so  conlrihnlcd.  It  was  held  that  slu' 
was  not  personally  liable  lor  the  debt,  lanoinls  v  Termehr, 
(■)()  la.  J)2. 

Slander,  Excommunication.  A  priest  during  the  Sabbath 
service  made  the  following  statement:  "May  the  Lord  have 
mercy  on  two  men,  who  brought  me  to  court  yesterday, 
biinging  shame  and  scandal  upon  me;  my  curse  and  the 
curse  of  God  be  down  upon  Patrick  Fitzgerabl  and 
Patrick  Butler,  who  brought  me  to  court  yesterday,  bring- 
ing me  shame  and  scan<lal,  and  that  it  remain  on  tliem.'' 
The  court  said  these  words  were  not  slanderous  in  them- 
selves, and  were  not  made  so  by  any  averments  in  reference 
to  the  business  of  the  plaintiff,  and  they  did  not  make  a 
defamatory  charge.  The  i)riest  at  the  same  time  pronounced 
an  anathema  and  sentence  of  excommunication  against  Fitz- 
gerald. On  demurrer,  the  court  assumed  that  the  priest 
])ossessed  the  power  of  excommunication,  and,  possessing 
this  power,  his  sentence  was  a  judicial  act  not  reviewable 
by  the  civil  courts.  Fitzgerald  was  subject  to  the  discijdinc 
of  the  church.  If  the  priest  had  no  ])Ower  to  excommuni- 
cate, then  Fitzgerald  was  still  a  member  of  the  church,  and 
had  no  cause  of  action  for  the  attempted  excommunication. 
A  sentence  of  excommunication,  even  if  ])ronounced  by  com- 
petent authority,  and  still  more,  if  possible,  when  pro- 
nounced without  authority,  is  incapable  of  imjtairing  or 
alfecting  a  man's  civil  rights.  Fitzgerabl  v  Kobinson,  112 
Mass.  :}71. 

Spanish  America.  Koman  Catholicism  has  been  the  otlicial 
religion  of  Si)ain  since  the  time  of  the  N'isigolhs.  As  far 
as  the  chnrcli  in  Spanish  America  was  concerned,  the  King 
of  S|)ain  was  sui)reme  patron.  Under  the  bulls  of  .lulius  II 
(ir)0;M5ia)  and  Alexander  VI  (14!)2-150:5)  there  were  con- 
ce<led  to  the  Sj)anish  crown  all  the  tithes  of  the  Indies,  under 
the  condition  of  endowing  the  church  and  jiroviding  the 
priest  with  projier  support.  The  church  in  Spanish  AnuT- 
ica,  through  this  royal  jtatronage,  came  into  possession  of 


(iSO  Tin:  (IN  IL   LAW   AND  Till:   (III   K'CII 

coiisidriMMc  propril  ics.  The  ii;^lil  of  tlic  cliiircli  !<»  own, 
iii:iiiitiiiii,  Mild  liolil  siicli  ]>r<>|i('rt ics  was  iiii<|ii<'sti()iM'(l,  and 
tlic  cliiircIi  conliiMH'd  in  iiiidispiihMl  pftsscssion  llicrcof. 
Down  lo  lli(!  occ-npation  of  i'orlo  Kico  hy  tlic  Anu-i-ican 
ti'oops  in  August,  1S!)S,  ainoiints  wcie  ivgularly  api)ro- 
jiriated  by  the  Spanish  govornincnl  i'ov  tlu'-('Xp<Mis»'s  of  wor- 
sliip  ill  Spain,  rul)a,  Porto  Ki<-o.  and  tlic  riiilippincs.  I'oncc 
V  Konian  Cntliolic  Cliiinli.  IMO  I'.  S.  L'!»(;. 

Spanish  America,  Limitation  of  Papal  Authority.  In  IT'.lli 
l>ro|»erty  in  Mobile,  Abibaina,  was  purchased  liy  the  King  of 
Spain  for  the  purpose  of  buibling  thereon  a  iiarocliial 
church,  and  dwelling  house  for  the  otliciating  priest.  The 
proi)erty  was  conveyed  to  the  King.  "The  words  used  in  the 
deed  would  indicate  that  it  was  contenijilated  l»y  the  intend- 
ant,  at  the  time  of  the  jjurcha.se,  to  approjiriate  the  lots 
to  the  purjjoses  of  the  church,  yet  there  is  nothing  in  the 
deed  whicli  woiibl  oblige  hini  thus  to  use  tliein."  A  covenant 
to  hold  the  j)roi»erty  for  the  use  of  the  b)(al  church  might 
have  been  implied  if  the  purchase  had  been  made  with  the 
funds  of  the  church,  but  clearly  not  where  the  royal  chests 
alone  had  contributed  the  means  of  payment.  The  deed 
authorized  the  King  to  possess,  sell,  or  alienate  the  property 
"at  his  sovereign  pleasure."  "Notwithstanding  the  venera- 
tion which  the  Si)aniards  have  manifested  for  the  Holy  See, 
the  vigilant  and  jealous  i)olicy  of  Ferdinand  early  j)rompted 
him  to  take  i)recautions  against  the  intro<luction  of  the 
papal  dominion  in  the  New  World.  For  that  purpose  he 
obtained  from  Alexander  VI  (1-192-1503)  a  grant  to  the 
crown,  of  the  tithes,  in  all  the  newly  discovered  countries, 
on  condition  that  he  would  provide  for  the  religious  in- 
struction of  the  natives.  Soon  after,  Julius  II  iir>0:Mr)i:>i 
conferred  on  him  and  his  successors  the  right  of  patronage, 
and  the  absolute  disposal  of  all  ecclesiastical  benefices  there. 
The  pontiffs,  unacquainted  with  the  value  of  what  Ferdinand 
diMuanded,  bestowed  these  donations  with  an  inconsiderate 
liberality,  which  their  successors  have  often  lamente<l,  and 
wished  to  recall.     In  consequence  of  those  grants  the  Span- 


KOMAX  CATIIOIJC  CHURCH  (iST 

i^sll  nionai'dis  iKMaiuc,  in  cIliHt,  llie  heads  <»1  llic  Calliolic 
Church  ill  their  Anieiican  i>ossessioiis.  In  them  the  adniiii- 
istratioii  of  its  revenues  was  vested.  Their  nomination 
of  persons  to  su])|iiy  vacant  benetices  was  instantly  sui)i)lied 
by  the  pope.  Thus  in  all  S])anish  America  authority  of 
every  species  centered  in  the  crown.  There  no  collision  was 
known  between  s])i ritual  and  temporal  jurisdiction.  The 
King  is  the  only  superior;  his  name  was  alone  heard  of, 
without  looking  to  a  dependence  upon  any  foreign  ])ower. 
I'ajtal  bulls  were  not  recognized  as  of  any  force  in  America 
until  they  had  been  examined  and  approved  of  by  the  Koyal 
Council  of  the  Indies;  and  if  any  bull  was  surreptitiously 
introduced  and  circulated  in  America,  without  obtaining 
that  approbation,  ecclesiastics  w^ere  required  not  only  to 
l)revent  it  from  taking  effect  but  to  seize  all  the  copies  of  it 
and  transmit  them  to  the  Council  of  the  Indies.  Thus 
limited  was  the  j)apal  jurisdiction  in  the  Spanish  posses- 
sions in  America."  Antones  et  al  v  Eslava's  Heirs,  0  Port. 
(Ala.)  527. 

Spanish  Sovereignty.  By  the  grants  from  Pope  Alexander 
and  Pope  .Julius  11  the  Sj)anish  sovereigns,  Fer<linand  and 
Isabella,  became,  in  effect,  the  heads  of  the  Catholic  Church 
in  their  American  possessions,  hi  them  the  administration 
of  the  revenues  was  vested.  Their  nominations  of  persons 
to  su])ply  vacant  benetices  was  instantly  supi>lied  by  the 
pojte.  Thus  in  all  S])anish  America  authority  of  every 
si)ecies  was  vested  in  the  crown.  At  that  time  no  collision 
was  known  between  spiritual  and  temporal  jurisdiction. 
The  King  was  the  only  supeiior.  Iiis  name  alone  was 
heard  ol'.  without  looking  l«t  the  (h']»en(lence  on  any  foreign 
power.  Papal  bulls  were  not  recognized  as  ol'  any  force  in 
America  till  they  had  been  examined  and  ai>proved  of  Ity 
the  Koyal  Council  of  the  Indies.  Blaii-  v  Odin,  ;'.  Tex.  Kep. 
288. 

Spanish  Supremacy  in  Colonies.  The  right  of  ])atronage  in 
the  S|; misli  colonies  in  America  was  expressly  reserved  to 
the   King  of   Spain   exclusively.      This   right   of  patronage 


«;SS  THK  (MVIIv  LAW   AM>  Till:  CliriiCH 

consisted  in  llic  ri^lif  of  tlic  Kiii;^  to  noiiiiiinlc  ;iinl  in-csciit 
anhhishopN,  bishops,  and  other  prelates,  to  the  hisliop  of 
Konie,  un(h'r  the  luinie  of  the  pope,  who  iippioved  of  the 
same,  unless  the  nominees  h;id  nol  the  (pmlificat  ions  j)re- 
scimImmI  by  the  cjinons,  ai'il  jrave  the  inslitulion  necessary. 
Tlie  Kill*:,'  also  nominated  and  designated  to  the  ai'chbishops 
an<l  bishops,  snch  jn-iests  as  lie  destined  to  the  service  f)f  the 
clinrches,  and  those  jfrelates  were  bound,  except  for  <^<>(tt\ 
and  lejijitimate  I'easons,  to  grant  to  snch  jtriests  the  canon- 
ical institution  necessary'  for  the  functions  and  j»owers  of 
their  oflBce;  and  all  persons,  whether  secular  or  ecclesias- 
tical, were  forbidden  to  exercise  this  riirht  of  jtatronage  or 
presentation.  Wardens  of  the  Church  of  St.  Louis  v  Blanc, 
8  Rob.  Re.  (La.)  52. 

Students,  Voting  Residence.  A  person  was  not  permitted  to 
enter  St.  .Iosej>irs  Seminary,  Yonkers,  New  York,  or  remain 
therein,  unless  he  intended  in  good  faith  to  become  a  Roman 
Catholic  ]>riest,  and  i-enounced  all  other  residences  oi-  homes 
save  that  of  the  seminary  itself,  and  njton  his  admission  to 
the  priesthood  he  was  to  continue  in  the  seminary  until 
assigned  elsewhere  by  his  ecclesiastical  superiors.  The  New 
York  constitution  j)rovides  that  "for  the  puri)ose  of  voting 
no  person  shall  be  deemed  to  have  gained  or  lost  a  residence 
while  a  student  of  any  seminary  of  learning."  Tt  was  held 
that  the  mere  residence  in  the  seminar}-  under  the  conditions 
stated  did  not  entitle  the  student  to  vote  in  Yonkers.  Matter 
of  Barry,  1()4  N.  Y\  18. 

Texas.  By  the  successful  revolution  the  re])\d»lic  of  Texas 
became  possessed  of  the  right  and  title  to  all  the  laiid.  or 
l)ublic  donmin,  that  belonged  to  the  government  of  Mexico 
at  the  date  of  the  revolution  by  as  full  and  i)erfect  title  as 
was  vested  in  that  government,  or  in  the  government  of 
Coahuila  and  Texas.  Blair  v  Odin,  3  Tex.  Rep.  288;  see  also 
subtitle  above.  Mexico  and  Texas. 

Unincorporated  Church,  Trust  Sustained.  A  bequest  of  a 
sum  of  money  to  trustees  for  the  ])ur])ose  of  maintaining  a 
church  on  the  testator's  farm,  although  the  church  had  not 


ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  080 

heeii  and  could  not  be  incorporated,  was  sustained  in  Seda  v 
Hiible,  75  la.  4L'!».     Tlie  will  created  a  valid  trust. 

Woodstock  College,  Maryland.  The  bequest  was  (o  the  "Col- 
lege of  the  Sacred  Heart  of  Jesus  situated  at  Woodstock, 
Howard  County,  Maryland."  The  evidence  showed  that  this 
was  a  misnomer,  Woodstock  College  beiug  the  beneficiary 
intended.  Uuder  the  Maryland  Declaration  of  Rights  this 
society  could  not  take  a  legacy  without  the  sanction  of  the 
Legislature.  The  court  allowed  the  legatee  tin)e  to  apply  to 
the  Maryland  Legislature  for  the  required  sanction,  and 
directed  the  legacy  to  be  held  to  await  (be  result  of  the 
application.    Matter  of  Fitzimmons,  20  ;^[isc.  (N.  Y.)  7:]1. 

A  legacy  was  given  to  Woodstock  College,  Howard  County, 
Maryland.  This  college  is  located  in  Baltimore  County  in- 
stead of  Howard  County.  This  was  the  only  Woodstock 
College  in  Maryland,  and  it  was  therefore  held  to  be  the 
college  intended  by  the  will.  Kerrigan  v  Conelly,  40  Atl. 
(N.  J.)  227. 


SALVATION  ARMY 

Described,  690. 

Devise  sustained,  690. 

Municipal  ordiniince,  Kansas,  691. 

Municipal  ordinance,  Michigan,  091. 

Municipal  ordinance.  New  York,  091. 

Municipal  ordinance,  Pennsylvania,  691. 

Described.  Tlie  Salvation  Army  is  an  unincorporated  reli- 
j>i<)iis  society  liaving  its  hea(l(inarters  in  London,  ICngland. 
The  ollieers  of  the  organization  liave  military  titles.  Tlie 
head  officer  in  England  is  called  ''General,"  the  subordinate 
officer,  who  is  head  of  the  organization  in  the  United  States, 
is  calleil  ^'Commander'' ;  a  "major"  has  charge  of  a  division 
of  the  country,  and  a  "captain"  has  charge  of  a  local  post 
or  barracks.  Wliile  these  officers  have  military  titles,  they 
jierform  duties  similar  to  those  of  the  officers  in  other  reli- 
gions denominations.  Thus  a  commander  corresponds  to  a 
bishoj),  a  major  to  a  presiding  elder,  and  a  captain  to  a  min- 
ister or  pastor.  The  barracks  is  the  church.  The  property 
of  the  society  in  this  country  is  held  in  the  name  of  the 
commander,  and  he  is  appointed  by  the  general  in  England. 
Lane  v  Eaton,  (i!)  Minn.  Ul. 

Devise  Sustained.  Testator  gave  a  fund  to  trustees  for  rhe 
St.  Tanl  branch  of  the  Salvation  Army,  to  be  used  for  the 
]>nrcliase  of  a  lot  on  which  the  Army  was  to  erect  a  build- 
ing for  the  purpose  of  its  meetings,  and  if  tlie  local  branch 
should  be  legally  organized,  the  trustees  were  directed  to 
convey  the  proj^erty  to  the  cor})orati()n.  The  Salvation  Army 
was  not  incorporated.  It  was  held  that  the  devise  to  the 
local  branch,  which  was  not  incorporated,  was  invalid,  but 
that  the  branch  might  become  incorporated  under  the  sta- 
tute within  a  reasonable  time,  and  would  then  be  entitled  to 
the  property.     Lane  v  Eaton.  (>!)  ]\[inn.  141. 

690 


SALVATION  ARMY  C!)! 

Municipal  Ordinance,  Kansas.  Ccilalii  iikmiiIk'is  (»r  tlic 
1)i-;iih1i  of  the  Salvation  Aniiy  in  tlie  city  ol'  \Velliiij;loii. 
Kansas,  were  arrested,  charged  with  tlie  viohition  of  a  cily 
ordinance  prohibiting  parades  without  a  license.  In  Ander- 
son V  Wellington,  40  Kan.  17»i,  the  ordinance  was  declared 
to  he  illegal  and  void,  because  it  was  nnreasonable  an<l  di<l 
not  lix  the  conditions  uniformly  and  iniparli.illy.  and  con- 
travened common  right. 

Municipal  Ordinance,  Michigan.  Members  of  the  Ainiy  in 
this  city  (Grand  Kapids)  paraded  the  streets  witliuni  iii» 
taining  the  mayor's  license,  as  required  l)v  an  (»rdiiiancc.  A 
mend)er  of  the  band  was  ari'ested  for  violating  the  oiMlinance. 
It  was  held  that  the  ordinance  was  nnreasonal>h'.  it  is  not 
com})etent  to  make  any  exce]»ti()ns  either  for  oi-  against  the 
Salvation  Army  be<;nise  of  its  theoi-ies  concerning  jiractical 
work.  In  law  it  has  the  same  right,  and  is  subjeci  lu  ilie 
same  i-estrictions  in  its  [jublic  administrations  as  any  sec- 
ular body  or  society  ^^•hich  uses  similar  means  for  drawing 
attention  or  creating  interest.     Matter  of  Fra/ee.  (i.".  Mich. 

Municipal  Ordinance,  New  York.  Members  of  this  organi/.a- 
tion  in  Kochester  were  on  a  Sunday  afternoon  walking  on 
a  sidewalk  on  a  ]»ublic  sti-eeT  in  single  tile  towar<l  and  near 
their  barracks.  Some  of  them  were  singing  a  religious  song 
and  one  carried  a  small  Hag.  Their  object  was  to  attract 
outsidei's  to  their  army  barracks  where  a  religious  meeting 
was  to  be  held.  The  j)ersons  so  nnirching  were  arresti'd  for 
violating  a  city  ordinance  against  dislnil»ing  the  jnihlic 
peace,  ami  were  convicted.  On  a|ii»eal  the  judgment  of  con- 
viction was  revei-sed,  the  courl  liohling  Iliat  the  act  of  the 
defen<lants  did  not,  under  the  i  ircumstaiK  t's,  c(»nstitute  a 
violation  of  the  ordinance.  People  v  Kochester.  II  linn 
(N.  Y. )   Kid. 

Municipal  Ordinance,  Pennsylvania.  In  \\ilkes Hanc  an 
ordimince  was  adopted  wlii<h,  among  other  things,  piohib- 
ited  the  beating  of  a  drum  in  a  |Mil»lic  street  without  a  per- 
mit from  the  niavor.     An  ensign  in   tlie  Salvation  Army  vio- 


692        Tiir:  ri\iL  law  and  riii;  rm  i:('ii 

l;il('(l  llic  (H'diiiiincc  i>_v  hcjitin^  :i  «lniiii  ;il  :iii  o|M'ii  ;iir  iiicet- 
iiif;  in  a  public  strool  witlumt  a  |M*riiiit.  Il(^  (lefciided  his 
act  by  alleging?  that  the  ordinance  was  void  as  an  infringe- 
ment on  religious  liberty  as  guaranteed  by  the  Pennsylvania 
constitution,  and  also  as  obnoxious  to  the  fourteenth  amend- 
ment to  the  federal  constitutictn.  It  was  held  that  the 
ordinance  was  a  valid  exercise  ol'  police  i»ower  and  did  not 
infringe  the  religious  liberty  of  a  inend)er  of  the  Salvation 
Army.  ''The  mere  beating  of  a  drum  is  not  a  \nirt  of  divine 
worship.  Nor  are  we  aware  that  any  other  sect  or  denomina- 
tion of  Christians  has  ever  introduced  a  bass  drum  into  the 
instrumentation  of  their  music.  The  city  ordinance  is  not 
directed  against  their  doctrine  or  dogmas,  their  faith  or 
their  forms."    Wilkes-Barre  v  Garabed,  11  l*a.  Sup.  Ct.  355. 


SCHISM 

Defined,  693. 

Effect  on  property  rights,  693. 

Defined.  The  teriu  means  a  division  or  separation  in  a 
church  or  denomination  of  Christians  occasioned  by  divers- 
ity of  opinions.    Nelson  v  Benson,  09  111.  27. 

A  schism  is  delined  bj'  lexico«^ra pliers  to  mean,  in  a  gen- 
eral sense,  division  or  separation;  but,  appropriately,  a  divi- 
sion or  separation  in  a  church  or  denomination  of  Chris- 
tians, occasioned  by  diversity  of  o])inions,  or  breach  of  unity 
among  people  of  the  same  religious  faith,  and  its  use  in  the 
Kentucky  statute  in  connection  with  the  word  "division" 
certainly  imports  no  more  than  a  separation  of  the  society 
into  two  parts,  without  any  change  of  faith  or  ulterior  rela- 
tions.   McKinney  v  Griggs,  5  Bush.  (Ky.)  401. 

Effect  on  Property  Rights.  The  universal  rule  is  that  where 
there  is  a  schism  in  a  church  those  remaining  faithful  to 
the  tenets  of  the  church  at  the  time  of  the  dispute,  whether 
they  be  in  the  majority  or  the  minority,  are  entitle<i  tu  lutld 
the  j)roi)erty.    Boyles  v  Roberts,  222  Mo.  013. 


693 


SCHOOLHOUSE 

Other  use,  694, 

Other  Use.  In  Scoficld  v  Ij<;lith  School  District,  27  Conn. 
4!)!),  it  was  held  that  the  inhabitants  of  a  school  district 
have  no  ri<i;ht  to  use  the  schoolhoiise  of  the  district  for  reli- 
gious meetings  and  Sunday  .schools  against  the  objection  of 
any  taxpayer  of  the  district,  even  though  the  district  may 
have  voted  to  allow  such  u.se. 

School  authorities  have  no  ])Ower  to  grant  the  use  of  a 
public  schoolhouse  for  the  purpose  of  conducting  a  Sunday 
school  therein.      Dorton  v  Hearn,  tl7  Mo.  I'Ol. 

Its  u.se  cannot  be  authorized  for  general  purposes  not  con- 
nected with  education.  Spencer  v  Joint  School  District, 
15  Kan.  250. 

In  State  v  Dilley,  U5  N.  W.  (Neb.)  991),  it  was  held  that 
holding  Sunday  school  or  religious  meetings  in  a  country 
schoolhouse  not  exceeding  four  times  a  year,  and  not  so 
as  to  interfere  with  school  work,  did  not  constitute  the 
schoolhouse  a  "i)lace  ol  worship"  within  the  Nebraska  Con- 
stitution, art.  1,  sec.  4. 


694 


SECESSION 

Abandonment,  when  deemed  effective,  695. 

Changing  denominational  relations,  696. 

Congregational,  696. 

Consent,  when  necessary,  696. 

Diversion,  696. 

Division  of  property,  696. 

Effect,  697. 

Effect  on  property  rights,  697. 

Forfeiting  church  proj^ert}-,  699. 

Forfeiting  property  rights,  700. 

Injunction,  700. 

Lutherans,  700. 

Majority's  right,  701. 

Minority's  right,  702. 

Pohtical  differences,  704. 

Presbyterian  Church,  705. 

Proof  necessary,  705. 

Right  of,  705. 

Roman  Cathohc,  700. 

Temporary  withdrawal,  706. 

Trust  fund,  706. 

Trustees,  seceding,  706. 

United  Brethren,  706. 

Abandonment,  When  Deemed  Effective.  A  seceding  minor- 
ity from  the  (icnctal  ( 'oiilVn*ii<o,  the  hiirliesl  h'jjjishnivc  and 
judicial  body  in  the  eburcli,  must,  iu  general,  be  regarded  as 
abandoning  the  chnrch  ;  nor  is  there  any  exception  to  this 
rule  uidess  in  the  case  of  a  nsnrj)ation  of  jiower  in  the  gov 
erning  body  so  revolutionary  in  its  character  as  to  result 
either  in  the  ci-eation  of  a  new  and  essentially  dilferent 
organization,  or  in  such  a  radical  change  of  the  articles  of 
faith  as  to  constitute  an  essentialh-  ditferent  leligion  from 
that  previously  followed  by  the  clmrcli.  lloisman  \  .Vlleu, 
12!>  Cal.   1:M. 

695 


«;!Mi         Tiih:  ('i\ii>  LAW  AM)  Tin;  rill  KCII 

Changing  Denominational  Relations.  In  isns  a  itoiiion 
(hiiininjj;  to  hv  tlio  iiKijorily  of  the  congregation  (»r  flic  Asso- 
ciiifc  RcfornKMl  Clinrcli  at  Seneca,  New  VorU,  vole<i  to  <lis 
solve  its  <*onnection  witli  the  T"nite<l  ricshyterian  ('lnir<li 
and  join  the  Kocliestei-  Cily  I'lcsliytery  of  tlic  ()l<l  School 
Tresbyterian  Church.  The  niinistei-  ol'  the  lo»al  church 
had  already  taken  the  sauu;  sti'p  and  had  been  adniitte<l  to 
the  Rochester  I'resbytery.  This  local  .society  then  hccanie. 
in  etl'ect,  i)ai*t  of  the  Kochester  Oity  I'l-esliyteiy  of  the  Old 
School  Presbyterian  Church.  If  a  reli<2;ious  society  thinks 
proper  to  separate  from  the  church  with  which  it  has  ])i-o- 
fesse<lly  l)een  connected  and  to  form  a  connection  with  an 
other  (lenoniiuation,  the  trustees  have  the  power  to  eni])loy 
such  minister  as  they  think  fit,  and  to  exclude  from  the 
]>uli)it  a  minister  a])pointed  by  the  ecclesiastical  judicatory 
with  which  the  society  was  jtrofessedly  connected.  Burrel 
V  Associate  Keformed  Church,  Seneca,  44  Barb.  ( \.  V.) 
282. 

Congi'egational.  In  a  Con<;iej^ational  church  the  niajority, 
if  they  adhere  to  the  organization  and  to  the  doctrines, 
represent  the  church.  An  expulsion  of  the  majority  by  a 
minority  is  a  void  act.  Bouldin  v  Alexander,  15  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  VM. 

Consent,  When  Necessary.  The  members  of  a  church  attil- 
iated  with  others  of  the  same  denomination  and  connec- 
tional  relation  cannot,  by  resolution,  secede  from  the  main 
b()d,y  and  establish  a  new  church  Avithout  the  consent  of  the 
general  church  or  its  authorized  agent.  American  Prim- 
itive Society  v  Pilling,  4  Zab.  (N.  J.)  (\~y.]. 

Diversion.  ^\'hen  property  is  held  by  a  religions  society 
in  trust  for  its  members,  none  of  the  members,  though  they 
constitute  a  majority,  have  any  right  or  power  to  divert  the 
propertj'  to  the  use  of  another  and  different  church  organ- 
ization ;  and  the  fact  that  they  i)rocure  a  change  of  the  nanie 
of  the  corporation  by  order  of  court  cannot  aid  them  in  su<h 
diversion.     Baker  v  Ducker.  7!)  Cal.  ;^()5. 

Division  of  Property.     In  case  of  a  di\ision  of  a  rcligio\is 


SECESSION  GU7 

society  or  corporation,  wlii'ie  both  piuties  still  adhere  to  tlie 
tenets,  doctrines,  and  discipline  ol"  the  orj;anization,  the 
property  should  be  divided  between  them  in  proportion  to 
their  members  at  the  time  of  the  separation.  Hale  v  Everett, 
53  N.  H.  1. 

In  1845  land  was  conveyed  to  trustees  of  the  local  soeiety 
called  Dunkers,  or  Tuid^ers,  on  which  land  a  meetinghouse 
was  afterward  erected  with  contributions  liom  niendiers  of 
the  society.  In  1SS2  a  division  arose  in  tlic  society,  one  sec- 
tion withdrawing  and  organizing  a  new  society,  calling 
themselves  I'rogressives.  Those  remaining  called  themselves 
Conservatives.  It  was  held  that  the  Progressives  were  not 
entitled  to  the  i)roi)erty,  but  must  be  deenied  to  have  seceded 
from  the  society,  but  the  court  suggested  that  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  there  was  no  sei-ious  dirtereiKe  ol  o])inion  on 
the  questions  relating  to  faith  and  doctrine,  and  that  all 
parties  desired  to  avoid  litigation,  an  agreement  be  made 
between  them  by  which  the  i)roiterty  should  be  sold,  and  the 
proceeds  divided,  one  third  to  the  J'rogressives,  and  two 
thirds  to  the  Conservatives,  such  jiroceeds  to  be  used  by 
the  respective  societies  in  the  erection  of  independent  houses 
of  worship,  and  otherwise  cari-ying  forward  the  work  of  the 
society.    Ex  parte  Shoup,  !>  Ohio  Dec.  (it.S. 

Effect.  The  seceding  members  of  the  church  congregation 
relinipiish  all  claims  upon  the  original  church  jnoperty. 
Lutheran  Congregation,  Pine  Hill  v  St.  Michael's  P.vangel- 
ical  Church,  4S  Pa.  SI.  20. 

Effect  on  Property  Rights.  Where  the  congregation  of  a 
church  is  divided  the  title  to  (he  pi-ojKMty  is  in  the  part, 
though  a  minority,  which  is  in  harmony  with  the  laws, 
usages,  and  customs  accepted  by  the  body  before  the  divi- 
sion, and  which  adhei-es  to  the  regulai  organization.  IJose 
V  Christ,  1!):'.  Pa.  St.  i:!. 

The  title  to  church  jnopeity  in  case  of  a  (li\ision  of  a 
religions  corporation,  remains  with  that  portion  of  the 
church  which  adheres  to  the  tenets  ami  discipline  (»!"  ihe 
organization  lo  whose  use  Ihe  proju'i-ly  was  oi'iginally  dedi- 


<i!>s        tin:  <i\ii.  law  am»  tiii;  <in  itcn 

ciikMl,  even  ;iltli<»\i^li  it  ni;iy  Ix-  in  ;i  iiiiiioril y.  I'crraria 
V  Vascoiicclh's.  L';t  111.  45(5,  'A\   111.  1. 

There  is  no  doubt  about  tlie  rijjlit  of  individual  iiiemborH 
of  a  clmi-i-li  oi-}i;i nidation  to  secede  therefrom  at  will.  The 
same  is  true  of  any  nundx'f  of  members  of  such  organiza- 
tions; but  no  number,  however  peat  the  majority  may  be. 
has  the  right  to  seceih*  and  t;ike  the  ehurrh  |)rojteity  with 
it  to  the  new  affiliation,  so  lon^^  as  there  i-emains  a  faction 
whicli  abides  by  the  doctrines,  principles,  and  rules  of  the? 
church  government  which  the  united  body  professed  when 
the  land  was  acquired.  Karoly  v  Hungarian  Keforined 
Church,  S:i  N.  J.  Kq.  514. 

The  local  society  was  declared  to  be  a  part  of  the  (lerman 
Reformed  Church  of  the  United  States,  and  subject  to  a 
specified  classis.  Several  members  of  the  church,  by  elec- 
tions and  various  proceedings,  sought  to  make  the  church 
independent,  and  rejected  the  authority  of  the  classis.  It 
was  held  that  those  members  and  officers  who  adhered  to  the 
original  organization  were  entitled  to  the  possession  and 
control  of  the  church  property,  and  that  the  seceders  had 
no  power  to  make  the  cliuich  independent.  Roshi's  App., 
(ID  Pa.  St.  4<)2. 

The  question  arose  as  to  the  right  to  use  a  chapel  which 
had  been  erected  for  the  use  of  one  ])articular  class  of 
seceders  from  the  lOstablished  Church  of  Scotland.  Certain 
members  of  the  seceding  class  again  seceded  from  that  class 
and  established  a  new  grouj)  of  seceders,  who  thereupon 
claimed  the  possession  and  control  of  the  chapel.  The 
original  society  for  which  the  chapel  had  been  erected  was 
connected  with  the  Associate  Synod.  The  court  held  that, 
according  to  the  facts  presented  on  the  trial,  both  parties 
claiming  the  property  still  adhered  to  the  religious  per- 
suasions and  principles  of  the  Associate  Synod,  to  which 
were  attached  the  members  of  the  local  society  at  the  time 
the  chapel  was  erected,  but  that  one  party  continuing  to 
occujyy  the  jiroperty  while  the  other  did  not,  it  was  in  effect 
declared  that  the  party  actually  in  possession  should  not 


SECESSION  GU9 

be  disturbed.     Craigdallie  v  Aikinau,  1*  Bli^li    ( Scotlaiul  i 
529. 

When  the  members  of  a  religious  congregation  divide,  and 
one  faction  breaks  away  from  the  congregation  and  forms 
a  new  organization,  tlie  title  to  the  property  of  the  congre- 
gation will  remain  in  that  part  of  the  congregation  M'hich 
adheres  to  the  tenets  and  doctrines  originally  la  tight  by  the 
congregation  to  whose  use  the  property  was  originally  dedi- 
cated. Christian  Church  of  Sand  Creek  v  Church  of  Christ 
of  Sand  Creek,  I'l!)  J 11.  5();i. 

This  society  was  chartered  as  a  branch  of  the  German 
Evangelical  Reformed  Church  in  the  Ignited  States,  subject 
to  the  synod  of  that  church,  ''and  was  in  all  resjjects  to  be 
governed  hy  its  rules  and  regulations" ;  and  a  charter 
expressly  i»rohibited  any  alteration  in  the  congregation  for 
another  denomination.  Two  juirties  having  arisen  claiming 
ditferent  views  as  to  church  government,  the  plaintiffs 
began  an  action  to  restrain  the  defendant  from  exercising 
control  over  the  property.  It  was  held  that  the  plaint  ill's 
were  the  true  church  and  entitled  to  the  possession  of  the 
property.  The  defendants  were  held  to  be  seceders. 
Schnorr's  Appeal,  (17  J*a.  1.'58. 

The  members  of  the  church  in  Cincinnati  became  in(()r 
porated  under  the  general  act  of  ISII),  and  in  1827  Ihey  were 
incorporated  by  a  special  act  of  the  Legislature.  Afterward 
the  treasurer  of  the  society  and  other  members  witlidi-ew 
and  organized  another  society  under  a  «liffei'ent  name,  built 
a  church,  and  conducted  worship  therein.  After  the  seces- 
sion, the  remaining  mend)ers  elected  trustees  and  apjiointed 
a  new  treasurer  in  ])lace  of  the  one  who  had  joined  the  seced- 
ing party.  The  new  ti'easurer  brouglil  an  action  against  the 
former  treasurer  to  recover  the  sum  of  money  remaining 
from  the  proceeds  of  tlie  sale  of  the  burying  gi-ound  owned 
by  the  society.  The  ]daintitf  i-ecovered  judgnieiil.  Meth- 
odist Episcoi)al  Church,  Cincinnati  v  \\"o<i(l,  .">  Ohio  28.*?. 

Forfeiting  Church  Property.  Laml  was  conveyed  to  a  local 
society  l(»  l»c  iieid  and  enjoy»'<l  by  it  so  long  as  it  siniuld  be 


700        Tin;  (IN  iL  \..\\y  AM>  'iiii;  cinijcii 

(•(»iiii('cI(m|  Willi  ;i  |»:irt  Hnhii-  synod.  It  \v;is  lichl  lli;it  llio 
society  l»y  willi(lr;i\\iii,i;  Iroiii  lli.it  syiunl  ;iii(l  joining'  ;iii- 
ollici-  rorlcili'd  its  iiiteresl  in  the  inopcity.  Hdd^^fis  v 
Uui-netl,  KKS  Tciin.  17:?. 

Forfeiting  Property  Rights.  It  is  well  settled  that  inein- 
bers  who  secech'  I'ivmii  :i  cliui-cli  oi-^anization,  or  a  ndi^'ions 
society,  thereby  forleit  all  rij;ht  to  any  i>art  of  the  church 
property;  and  whether  there  has  been  a  secession  or  not, 
within  tliis  rule,  is  a  mixed  (piestion  of  h>w  and  fact,  to  be 
decided  upon  the  evidence  with  a  view  to  all  the  eircnin- 
stances,  incliidinji;  the  acts  of  the  ])arties  and  the  motives 
which  have  prom]>ted  such  acts.  Hale  v  Kverett,  5:',  N.  II.  1. 
^^'here  a  portion  of  a  church  congregation  refuses  to  ad- 
here to  the  distinctive  tenets  imposed  upon  members  of  the 
congregation,  and  secedes  and  adoj^ts  new  tenets  or  a  new 
belief,  it  forfeits  its  rights  in  the  church  property.  Rex  v 
Wasyl  Kapij,  15  Manitoba  Re.  119. 

Injunction.  The  itrojxM'ty  of  a  church  must  be  held  and 
used  in  trust  for  the  promulgation  of  the  generally  accepted 
doctrines  of  that  church,  and  members  departing  therefrom 
and  causing  a  schism  therein,  will  be  enjoined  from  control- 
ling or  interfering  with  its  management.  Christian  Church 
V  Carpenter,  108  la.  U7. 

Lutherans.  In  1815  testator  by  his  will  made  a  bequest 
to  the  Lutheran  congregation  in  Selinsgrove  to  be  invested 
in  specified  securities  "for  the  use  of  the  said  congregation 
forever."  The  local  church  was  attached  to  the  old  I'enn- 
sylvania  Synod  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  of  which  the  West 
Pennsylvania  Synod  was  a  part.  In  1843  a  portion  of  the 
members  became  dissatisfied  with  the  new  measures  and 
doctrines  introduced  into  the  church  by  their  minister  and 
thereupon  gave  him  notice  that  his  services  were  no  longer 
required,  and  finally  closed  the  doors  of  the  church  against 
him.  The  members  who  accepted  the  teachings  of  the  min- 
ister erected  a  new  church  building  and  organized  a  society 
of  which  this  minister  became  pastor.  Those  who  rejected 
the  teachings  of  Ihe  minister  continued  to  occupy  the  orig- 


SECESSION  701 

iiial  clmieli  Ijiiildiiig  and  invited  a  new  pastor,  who  was 
recognized  by  the  old  Pennsylvania  Synod.  The  congrega- 
tion worshiping  in  the  new  church  was  attached  to  the  East 
Teunsylvania  vSynod.  The  East  and  West  Synods  did  not 
recognize  each  other.  Each  congregation  claimed  to  be  the 
Lutheran  Church  to  which  the  legacy  was  given.  In  an 
action  involving  the  title  to  the  legacy  it  was  held  that  the 
Lutheran  congregation  in  Selinsgrove,  holding  and  teach- 
ing the  doctrines  which  were  held  and  taught  when  the 
testator  was  a  member  of  it,  and  when  lie  made  liis  will,  was 
the  congregation  entitled  to  the  bequest.  App  v  Liitlicraii 
Congregation,  (J  Pa.  St.  201. 

Majority's  Eight.  Dis.sensions  having  arisen  in  the  society, 
a  minority  withdrew  and  attempted  to  organize  another 
society  under  the  same  name.  It  a])])('ared  that  the  original 
society  was  Congregational  in  character,  and  was  to  be  con- 
trolled by  a  majority  of  its  members.  In  an  action  to  i)re- 
vent  the  minority  from  asserting  title,  and  claiming  i>os- 
session  of  the  property,  it  was  held  that  the  majority  was 
entitled  to  the  possession  and  control  of  the  church  i)roperty. 
Gip.son  V  aforiis,  36  Tex.  Civ.  App.  503.  See  also  31  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  045,  28  Tex.  Civ.  App.  555. 

The  wrongful  and  violent  seizure  of  the  editice  and  prop 
erty  belonging  to  a  church  of  the  Congregational  form  of 
government  b}^  a  minority  of  the  members,  contrary  to  the 
wishes  of  a  majority,  the  dejjosition  of  oMIcers  of  the  clnircli 
and  of  ti-ustees  who  held  the  |>roj»erty,  and  the  retention  and 
use  thereof  l)y  the  minority  to  the  exclusion  of  the  majoi-ity. 
furnish  good  grounds  for  (Mpiilable  relief.  P>ates  v  ilouston. 
66  Ga.  lf)8. 

A  minority  of  the  members,  in  I'esjtonse  to  an  invilalioii 
from  the  pastor  /nade  while  he  was  oc(U|iyiiig  the  pnlpil. 
decided  to  sece<le  from  the  local  church  and  s«m  nji  foi'  them- 
selves, claiming  to  be  the  true  Cnited  Baptist  Cluirch  at 
Lulbegrud.  They  alleged  that  the  majority  h:id  gone  out 
from  the  society  and  abandonetl  the  Paptist  I'nion.  Vov  a 
time  each  party  o<cui)ied  the  chni-ch  edilice  on  dilVerenl  Sun- 


70L»  Tin-:  own.   LAW   AM)  THK  cnil'ItCII 

days  ill  (mcIi  iim»ii11i.  The  nuijority  |»;ii'ty  inslilnlcd  procc*'*!- 
ings  to  obtain  the  exclusive  posHCSsioii  ;iih1  ri^lit  to  une  tin; 
church.  Ft  was  lidd  that  tliis  party  must  ha  considered 
the  church,  and  cntith'<l  to  the  exclusive  jtossession  an<l  en- 
joyment of  the  churcli  property;  that  the  minority  party, 
haviufif  expcTided  ]ai'<;('  snins  foi-  repairs  and  inijtrovementH 
on  tlie  property,  was  entith*d  to  reinihnrsenient,  and  to  use 
the  church  property  until  such  reimhursement  had  been 
made.    Hadden  v  riiorn.  8  B.  Mon.  (Ky. )  70. 

The  society  had  an  existence  as  far  back  as  171K).  I'ntil 
1855  the  church  projterty  was  occu])ied  by  the  society  in 
harmony.  At  that  time  dilferences  arose  in  the  society 
resulting-  from  some  practices  initiated  by  the  pastor.  A 
secession  occurred,  and  another  society  was  organized,  an<l 
the  seceding  minority  brought  an  action  against  the  major- 
ity to  obtain  j)ossession  of  the  church  property.  It  was 
held  that  the  title  to  the  property  reuuiiued  in  the  successors 
of  the  original  congregation,  and  that  the  minority,  the 
seceding  party,  could  not  assert  any  title  thereto,  and  had 
no  right  to  the  possession  thereof.  The  congregation  was  at 
first  attached  to  the  "West  Pennsylvania  Lutheran  Synod. 
Lutheran  Congregation,  I'ine  Hill  v  St.  Michael's  P^vangel- 
ical  Church,  48  I»a.  St.  20. 

Minority's  Right.  Tn  Brown  v  Monroe.  80  Ky.  44'i.  mem- 
bers of  a  colored  church  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  South,  withdrew  and  attached  them- 
selves to  the  African  Methodist  E])isco]>al  Church  of  the 
United  States,  and  used,  and  claimed  the  right  to  use  the 
local  church  property.  It  was  held  that  the  right  to  the 
])ossessiou  and  use  of  the  ])roperty  remained  in  th(»se  mem- 
bers of  the  local  church  who  did  not  withdraw,  b\it  who 
adhered  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  The 
seceders  had  no  i-ight  to  the  proj»erty. 

In  1827  the  major  part  of  the  churcli,  including  the  dea- 
cons, with  others  constituting  a  minority  of  the  parish, 
formed  a  new  society  under  the  name  of  the  Evangelical 
Keligious  Society  in  the  south  parish  or  j)reciiict  of  Brook- 


SECESSION  703 

field.  Others  remained  in  the  oiigiiiai  society  and  employed 
a  new  pastor.  This  society  elected  the  plaintiff  as  its  sole 
deacon.    Each  society  claimed  to  be  tlie  true  church. 

It  was  held  that  an  adhering  niin<n-ity  of  a  loial  or  terri- 
torial parish,  and  not  the  seceding  majority,  const  it  ulcd  the 
church  of  such  parish  for  all  civil  jturposes.  Tlierefore  the 
plaintiff,  as  a  representative  of  the  original  society,  was 
entitled  to  tlie  j)ossession  of  the  ]»roi)erty.  Stebhins  v  .Jen- 
nings, 10  rick.  (Mass.)   ITl*. 

A  minority  or  seceding  i>arty  cannot  destroy  the  identity 
of  a  religious  society  or  church  by  ( laiiiiiiig  to  he  itself  tlie 
society  or  church,    lladden  v  Chorn,  S  H.  Mon.  (  Ky.  i  TO. 

The  seiiaration  of  a  majority  of  the  mend>ers  did  not  alfect 
the  status  of  the  property,  but  the  minority  remaining  were 
to  be  deemed  the  legal  society.    Baker  v  Fales,  Hi  Mass.  48S. 

Plaintiffs,  a  minority  of  a  local  society,  brought  an  action 
to  restrain  the  nmjority  from  asserting  title  and  right  of 
possession  and  control  of  the  church  i)roperty.  The  division 
arose  out  of  differences  concerning  certain  points  of  doc- 
trine. A  church  council  to  which  the  question  was  referred 
decided,  on  an  ex  jtarte  hearing,  that  the  plaintiffs,  the  mi- 
nority party,  represented  the  true  church,  and  that  the 
defendants,  a  majority,  were  seceders,  an<l  had  adopted  doc- 
trines not  generally  accepted  by  Baptists,  but  the  majority 
ignored  this  decision.  The  court  held  that  the  majority 
party  was  entitled  to  control  the  jiroperty,  at  least  until 
tliey  have  been  sliown  to  have  ceased  to  constiiute  the  church 
by  departing  from  its  fundamental  faith.  Tin'  c(»nrt  de 
clined  to  consider  the  question  as  to  which  jiarty  most 
nearly  represented  the  true  faith  of  the  chnn  h.  .lari-cdl  v 
Sproles,  20  Tex.  Civ.  A])p.  I>87. 

Any  number  of  the  members  of  a  church  w  ho  disagree  with 
()ther  brethren,  or  with  the  minister,  or  with  (he  parish,  may 
withdraw  from  fellowship  with  them  and  act  as  a  church 
in  a  religious  point  of  view,  having  the  ordinances  admin- 
istered and  other  religious  ollices  jn'rloi-ined.  As  to  all  civil 
purposes,  the  .secession  of  a  whole  church  fi-om   tlu'  parish 


701  'I'lIM   <"l\ll.    LAW   AND   'llii;   (ill    iM'll 

would  lie  :iii  ex  I  iiicl  i(»ii  (if  tlic  cliiircli,  ;itii|  il  is  cuiiipeteiit 
to  llic  iiiciiihcrs  (>{'  llic  p;ii-isli  to  iiistiliilc  :i  new  <liiii'<|i  or  to 
('iij^riil'l  one  upon  Ilic  ol<l  stork  if  nwy  of  it  should  rcinain; 
;iii(l  this  new  cliurch  NN'onId  succeed  to  iill  the  ri;^dils  (jf  the 
old  ill  ichitioii  to  the  ]»;iiisli.  Where  ;i  iiiajoiit y  of  the  mem- 
bers of  :i  ('oii<;re<;at  ioiial  cliiircli  separate  fioiii  the  majority 
of  llie  j»arisli,  the  iiieiiihers  who  remain,  altlioii<;Ii  a  minority, 
constitute  the  church  in  such  jtarisli.  and  retain  tlie  rights 
and  ])roperty  belonging  thereto.  P.aker  v  I^iles.  HI  Mass. 
488. 

Political  Differences.  A  church  edifice  was  erected  in  1847. 
and  the  con<i,regation  continue<l  as  <»ne  harmonious  body 
until  the  close  of  the  Civil  Wnv.  Soon  afterward  the  loyal 
portiou  of  the  conj^regatiou,  includiiii;  two  out  of  three 
elders,  but  constituting  a  minority  of  the  membership  of 
the  church,  ou  account  of  ditlerence  of  political  sentiment, 
procured  the  discharge  of  the  minister,  took  possession  of 
the  church,  and  emi)loyed  another  minister.  About  1857  or 
1858  the  Jonesboro  church  connected  itself  with  the  United 
Synod,  of  the  I'resbyteriau  Cliurch  in  the  United  States, 
and  had  kei)t  up  and  continued  that  connection  until  the 
union  of  the  body  with  the  Old  School  Presbyterian  As- 
sembly in  1864.  After  the  war  the  minority  of  a  congrega- 
tion, without  notice  to  the  majority,  assumed  to  carry  the 
church  back  to  the  New  School  Presbyterian  Cluirch  North. 
Subsequently  the  majority  reorganized  the  Jonesboro  church, 
not  as  a  secession,  but  as  the  church  itself.  It  was  held 
that  the  effect  of  tlie  purchase  or  donation  of  land  for 
church  purposes,  and  tlie  erection  of  an  edifice  thereon, 
was  to  ]»rovide  that  the  building  should  be  used  for  the  pur- 
poses of  the  l*resbyterian  congregation  as  organized,  and  as 
it  might  continue  to  be  in  the  future,  and  for  all  time  to 
come.  Such  organizations  are  self-]>erpetuatiug.  Tlie  minor- 
ity could  not  exclude  the  majority.  There  was  no  com 
plaint  against  the  majority,  growing  out  of  any  change  of 
religious  opinions.  The  only  differences  were  of  a  political 
character.     It  was  held  that  the  action  of  the  minority  in 


SECESSION  70." 

exciudiug  the  majorit}-,  and  in  taking  possL'ssion  ot  llic 
church,  was  iinaiithoiized  and  void;  that  the  minority  did 
not  constitute  tlie  church,  and  coukl  not  nuike  itself  the 
church  by  any  dechiration  of  its  own.  The  majority  was 
dechired  to  be  entitled  to  the  possession  of  the  church  proj) 
erty  and  archives  fur  the  reason  that  it  constituted  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  Jonesboro.  Deaderick  v  Lampson,  11 
Heisk.  (Tenn.)  52:1 

Presbyterian  Church.  The  standards  of  the  church  teach 
that  this  right  of  .secession  is  fundamental  in  every  branch 
of  the  associate  church,  when  any  may  judge  such  a  step 
proper  or  necessary ;  not  onlj-  is  it  a  right,  but  it  is  a  duty 
to  separate  from  a  churcli  corrupt  in  princii)le,  or  ])erhaps 
fallen  into  gross  error  and  doctrine.  Skilton  v  Webster, 
Brightly  N.  P.  (Pa.)  20:5. 

Proof  Necessary.  Befoi'e  cori>orators  can  forfeit  their 
nienibershii)  tlicy  must  be  proved  to  have  seceded  from  the 
corporation  of  which  they  are  mend)ers.  If  a  ])ortion  secede, 
and  the  rest,  however  small  thcii*  numbei-,  adliere,  the  adher- 
ents bj'  their  fidelity  secure  tlieii-  toi-porate  existence,  and 
are  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  proi)erty  of  the  corpo- 
ration.   Harmon  v  Dreher,  1  Speer's  Eq.  (S.  (\\  S7. 

Right  of.  In  Smith  v  Nelson,  IS  Xt.  511,  it  was  said  Ihat 
the  society  and  the  denomination  of  whic  li  "I  rormcd  a  pait. 
were  founded  on  tlie  ])rinci])le  that  it  is  both  Ibc  right  .iiid 
duty  to  secede,  as  was  done  by  lOi-skine  and  others  in  17:'.:'.. 
from  the  prevailing  ]»arty,  who  may  oldaiii  a  majority  in 
the  judicatories,  synods,  and  asscnddics.  when  in  the  opin 
ion  of  the  seccihM-s  such  !naj(»riti''s  liave  dcjjartcd  from  the 
AN'ord  of  (lod,  and  icccivcd  and  approved  slandaids  ol'  doc- 
trine, worshij*,  government,  and  discijdine. 

In  the  ab.sence  of  testimony  it  will  In*  presumed  tliat  reli 
gious  societies  cannot  dissohc  ihcir  connection  with  the 
jtrincipal  organization  witlionl  permission.  If  the  riglit  to 
witlidraw  by  a  clnirch  at  pleasure  does  exist,  according  to 
the  constitution,  g(»veiiiment.  and  usages  of  the  general 
oi'ganization.  it  must  be  pioxcd  as  a  lint,  and,  like  any  other. 


7(m;        Tin;  cin  ii,  law  am>  'nii:  ciii  i;«ii 

must  (l('|»'inl  ii|>(iii  (lie  CN  i<|rii(  (•  <lc(|ii(c(l  on  llic  tri;il.  \'aH- 
coiK-ollos  el  ;il  \    l''('ii;iri;i  el  ;il,  L'T   III.  -'M. 

Roman  Catholic.  Tlic  socirly  was  (livi(l<'<l  aiid  two  coiijin;- 
<,Mti(ms  loiincd  tlicreri-oiii.  one  retaining;  tlio  original  name, 
and  the  other  taking  a  new  name — St.  Peter  and  8t.  Paul 
Catholic  Congregation.  Tlii.s  division  was  made  with  the 
approval  of  the  bishop  of  the  diocese.  The  original  property 
was  sold  to  the  original  congregation,  and  a  bond  was  given 
to  the  new  congregation  for  its  interest  in  the  jjrojierty.  In 
an  action  on  the  bond  it  was  held  that  there  was  a  valid 
consideration  for  the  contract  resulting  from  the  division 
and  separation  and  the  agreed  apportionment  of  the  original 
l)roperty.    Arts  v  (lUtlirie,  7.")  la.  (574. 

Temporary  Withdrawal.  Pa  it  of  tlie  members  withdrew 
from  the  society  (Swedish  Church)  and  organized  another 
church.  They  subsequently  returned  to  the  original  society. 
Their  withdrawal  was  held  not  to  be  a  secession  from  the 
church  but  only  a  temporary  sejiaration  from  the  local 
society.    Peterson  v  Samuelson,  42  Neb.  161. 

Trust  Fund.  Seceders  from  a  religious  society  are  not 
entitled  to  share  in  the  benefits  of  a  fund  held  in  trust 
for  the  society.  Attorney-General  ex  rel  Abbot  v  Dublin. 
38  N.  H.  459. 

Trustees,  Seceding.  Before  the  persons  seceding  from  a 
religious  coritoration  or  society  can  recover  possession  and 
control  of  the  church  proi)erty  by  virtue  of  being  the  right- 
ful trustees  of  such  corporation,  against  those  who  have 
remained  in  continuous  pos.session  and  control,  claiming 
to  be  such  rightful  trustees,  they  must  have  been  peaceably 
admitted  to  the  offices  of  such  trustees,  or  have  established 
their  title  thereto  by  some  direct  proceeding  or  action 
brought  for  that  purpose.  Fadness  v  Braunborg,  73  Wis. 
257. 

United  Brethren.  Property  was  held  in  trust  for  a  certain 
sect,  the  Cnited  Brethren  in  Christ,  and  at  a  General  Con- 
ference, which  convstituted  the  highest  authority-  in  the  sect, 
an    amended   constitution    and   revised   confession   of   faith 


SECESSION  707 

were  adopted,  A  small  i)ait  ol  the  General  Conference 
seceded,  claimed  to  be  the  true  representatives  of  the  cliurch, 
and  demanded  the  benetit  of  tlie  property.  It  was  held  that 
where  such  changes  do  not  conflict  with  any  formal  doctrinal 
matter,  nor  with  the  substance  of  the  faith,  and  are  adopted 
in  the  method  provided  for  by  the  constitution  of  the  church, 
the  schismatics  cannot  obtain  aid  from  the  courts.  Griggs 
V  Middaugh,  10  Ohio  Dec.  G43. 

A  division  in  the  United  Brethren  Society  at  Fairview, 
Ohio,  resulting  from  the  adoption  of  an  amended  constitu- 
tion and  a  revised  confession  of  faith  by  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1889,  after  which  a  minority  withdrew  and  or- 
ganized a  new  society,  did  not  give  such  minority  a  right 
to  the  property  of  the  local  church.  The  majority  who 
adhered  to  the  original  organization  were  entitled  to  such 
proi)erty,  and  to  its  ])Ossession  and  control.  Brundage  v 
Deardorf,  92  Fed.  2U,  aff'g  55  Fed.  8^9. 

The  effect  of  a  withdrawal  of  members  from  the  clnncli 
of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ  in  Canada  was  considered 
in  Brewster  v  Hendershot,  27  Out.  App,  282  (see  article  on 
United  Brethren  in  Christ),  where  it  was  held  that  i)ersons 
who  adhered  to  the  original  denomination  were  entitled  to 
control  the  propert3\  and  that  the  seceders  had  not  and 
could  not  acquire  any  right  to  the  i)roi)erty,  and  lould  not 
exercise  any  control  over  it. 


SECTARIAN  INSTITUTION 

General,  708. 

General.  Considering?  the  provision  of  the  Illinois  consti- 
tntion  i»roliilMlinj5  uppiopriations  by  tlie  State,  or  by  a 
municipal  corporation  in  aid  of  a  church,  sectarian  school, 
or  other  institution  controlled  by  a  church  or  religious  de- 
nomination, tlie  court  said  tliat  approi)riations  for  the  sup- 
port of  inmates  were  in  aid  of  the  institution.  The  rendi- 
tion of  service  by  the  institution  in  giving  instruction  to 
children  committed  to  it  is  not  the  criterion  by  \s  liich  ques- 
tions of  aid  must  be  determined.  The  institution  is  secta- 
rian if  it  is  under  the  distinctive  control  of  a  particular  reli- 
gious denomination  and  teaches  its  own  faitli  and  creed  to 
the  inmates  to  the  exclusion  of  anj'  other  faitli  or  creed. 
Cook  County  v  Industrial  School  for  Girls,  12.')  111.  540. 

In  Sargent  v  IVd.  (»f  Education  (Kt)cliester )  177  N.  Y.  317, 
it  was  held  that  St.  Clary's  Boys'  Orphan  Asylum  of  the  city 
of  Rochester  was  neitlier  a  school  nor  an  institution  of 
learning  within  tlie  meaning  of  sec.  -1  of  art.  0  of  the  consti- 
tution prohibiting  the  payment  of  public  moneys  to  a  de- 
nominational school  or  institution  of  learning,  but.  on  the 
contrary,  was  an  orphan  asylum  within  the  meaning  of  sec. 
14  of  art.  8  of  the  constitution  permitting  the  payment  of 
j)ublic  moneys  for  the  secular  education  of  the  inmates 
therein.  The  fact  that  such  asylum  was  controlled  by  a 
religious  organization  and  that  the  teachers  employed  by 
the  Board  of  Education,  who  were  duly  licensed  t(»  teach  by 
the  public  authorities,  \\ere  members  of  a  sisterhood  con- 
nected with  such  (lenoiiiinatiou,  is  immaterial,  since  the 
statute  clearly  recognizes  the  fact  that  the  instruction  of 
the  inmates  is  neither  i)racticable  nor  jiossible  elsewhere 

70S 


SECTA  K I A  N    I  X  ST  ITl  T  ION  7UU 

thau  in  the  institution  itself,  iiiid  it  is  the  duty  of  tlie  board 
to  provide  for  their  secular  education  therein,  regardless  of 
the  religious  belief  of  those  in  control  of  the  asylum.  It 
appeared  that  no  denominational  tenet  or  doctrine  was 
taught  or  religious  instruction  imparted  in  the  asylmn  dur- 
ing the  hours  of  school  ju'escribed  by  the  i-ules  ;nid  regula- 
tions of  the  Board  of  IMucatioii,  but  religious  instruction 
was  given  in  the  evening  at  seven  o'clock. 


SECTARIAN  INSTRUCTION 

Illinois  Industrial  School  for  Cirls,  710. 

Illinois,  712. 

Iowa,  713. 

Kansa.s,  713. 

Massachusetts,  713. 

Meaning,  how  determined,  714. 

Nebniska,  714. 

Ohio,  714. 

Pennsj'Ivania,  715. 

Prayer,  715. 

South  Dakota,  716. 

Taxpayers'  presiuni)tion  of  consent,  716. 

Texas,  717. 

Wisconsin,  718. 

Illinois  Industrial  School  for  Girls.  This  iii.stitiitioii  was 
by  statute  aiitliorized  to  receive  dei)eiKlent  female  infants, 
eoniinitted  thereto  Ity  the  county  court,  and  to  keep  them 
until  they  arrived  at  the  age  of  eighteen  years,  unless  sooner 
discliarjied  according  to  law.  The  county  judge  made  certifi- 
cates from  time  to  time.  ai)proving  bills  for  clothing  for 
the  girls,  such  bills  to  be  paid  by  the  county  treasurer.  In 
an  action  by  the  scluxd  against  the  county  for  ttiition,  care, 
and  clothing,  a  judgment  was  recovered  for  the  amount 
established.  The  Cook  County  commissioners  refused  to  pay 
the  judgment  on  (lie  ground  that  they  were  forbidden  by  the 
constilulion,  art.  8,  sec.  .'>,  which,  among  other  things.  \no- 
hibited  any  a]>i>ro])riation  by  the  State  or  any  munici])ality 
in  aid  of  any  church  or  sectarian  ])urj>ose  or  school  or  other 
educational  institution  controlled  by  any  church  or  sec- 
tarian denominatioti. 

The  oi>erations  of  the  Indnsli-ial  School  were  carried  on 
through  two  l\(»nian  Cath(»lic  institutions,  and  on  llie  |)reni- 

710 


SECTARIAN    I.XSTUI  <  TlOX  711 

ises  aud  in  the  buildings  of  such  institutions,  known  as  the 
House  of  the  Good  Shejiherd  and  St.  .Joseph's  Oipiian  Asy- 
lum, which  were  respectively  uiuler  the  sui)ervision  and  con- 
trol of  ordei's  of  Sisters  known  as  the  Sisters  of  tlu'  (Jood 
Shepherd  and  Sisters  of  Charity.  In  each  institution  dis- 
tinctively Roman  Catholic  relijj;ious  exercises  were  observed 
at  different  times  durinj;  the  day,  and  no  relij;ion  was  tauj^^lit 
except  that  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  I'xiiii  insiitu 
tions  conducted  schools  for  the  instruction  of  children.  The 
court  hebl  that  both  the  institutions — the  H(»use  of  tiie  (lood 
Shepherd  and  St.  Josei)h's  Asylum — were  schools  exclusively 
maintained  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  were  there- 
fore to  be  classed  as  sectarian  institutions.  As  bearing  on 
the  question  of  the  character  of  the  House  of  the  Good 
Shepherd,  it  was  shown  that  a  county  judge  of  Cook  County 
was  refused  admission  to  the  institution,  and  was  informed 
that  he  must  have  a  i)ermit  from  the  bishop  or  soiue  other 
Catholic  gentleman  in  good  stamling. 

The  Industrial  School  was  incorporate<l,  aud  had  receive(l 
authority  to  accep't  dependent  female  infants  under  tiie  stat- 
ute. Seven  of  the  officers  of  the  Industrial  School  wore 
oflBcers  and  manageis  of  the  House  of  the  Good  Shei»herd, 
and  the  remaining  two  officers  of  the  school  were  Roman 
Catholics.  At  the  time  of  the  comnuMicenuMit  of  the  action 
the  Industrial  School  had  no  building  or  other  projierty. 
The  children  nominally  sent  to  the  Industrial  School  were 
mixed  with  other  jiersons  sent  to  the  House  of  the  (Jood 
Shepher<l.  There  was  m>  separate  dassilication.  It  was 
shown  that  a  large  number  of  girls  alr<'a<ly  in  the  House  of 
the  Good  Shepherd  and  the  Saint  Joseph's  Orphan  Asyluiu 
were  taken  into  the  county  cmirt  and  adjudged  to  lie  de- 
pendent, and  were  thereupon  <ommitted  to  the  hidiotrial 
School,  but,  in  fact,  i-eturiied  to  the  institutions  fi-om  which 
they  had  been  brought.  It  was  held  that  the  |iaynient  of 
the  amount  claimed  by  the  Indnsirial  School  would  be  a 
])aymeut  in  sup])ort  of  schools  controlled  by  a  clmrch,  aud 
in  aid  of  a  sectarian  jmrpose.     It  was  held  further  that  the 


TIL'        Tin:  ('i\ii.  LAW  AM)  Tin;  ciirK'cii 

I  iidiist  ri.il  Stiiool  iK'Ncr-  li;i\  iiij;-  csliildislMMJ  ,[\u\  iii;iiiit;iiii(Ml 
;in  iiidiisl ii;il  scliool  lor  ^irls,  }is  coTitciiiplatcd  hy  the  act 
<»r  IST'.I,  il  \v;is  not  (Milillcd  to  ;iv;iil  itself  of  the  pi-ovisions 
of  lliat  still  lite.  The  act  did  not  coiiteniplate  the  organiza- 
tion of  nominal  industrial  schools,  and  the  care  of  persons 
coinniit ted  to  thcni  l)y  other  institutions,  but  each  school 
orj^aiiized  under  the  act  was  ex[)ected  to  maintain  a  liome 
of  its  own  for  the  reception  of  children  committed  to 
it.      Cook   Connly    v    Industrial    School    foi-   (lirls,    12.')    111. 

Illinois.  The  I'oai-d  of  l^ducation,  actinij;  under  statute 
authority,  leased  for  school  jturjioses  the  basement  of  a 
Ronnin  Catholic  chni-ch.  It  was  held  that  the  board  had 
power,  and  it  was  its  duty,  to  lease  a  building  for  school 
pur])oses,  if  the  district  had  no  schoolhouse,  or  the  school- 
hou.se  had  become  unfit  for  use,  and  the  renting  of  a  part  of 
a  Roman  Catholic  church  was  not  legally  objectionable.  It 
ai)j)eared  tliat  Koman  Catholic  teachers  an<l  children  of 
Catliolics  were  recpiired  to  attend  at  a  Catholic  church,  the 
basement  of  which  was  used  for  the  school,  at  eight  o'clock 
in  the  morning  on  school  days,  and  hear  mass  read  by  the 
priest,  and  then  repair  to  the  schoolroom,  and  engage  in 
the  study  of  the  church  catechism  for  half  an  liour  before 
the  o])ening  of  the  school,  and  at  the  close  of  the  school  at 
noon  the  Augelus  prayer  was  read  by  the  teachers  and 
pui)ils. 

In  a  proceeding  to  prevent  the  use  of  school  funds  for 
sectarian  instnution  it  a])i)eared  that  the  plaintiff  had  no 
children  which  would  be  affected  by  the  religious  exercises 
in  the  church  before  school,  and  that  there  was  no  ground 
for  equitable  relief.  It  was  alleged  that  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation had  threatened  to  employ  Catholic  teachers.  It  was 
held  that  the  law  did  not  prescribe  any  religious  belief  as 
a  qualification  of  a  teacher  in  the  public  schools,  and  there- 
fore the  school  authorities  might  select  a  teacher  who  be- 
longed to  any  church,  or  to  no  church,  as  they  might  think 
best.     Milliard  v  Board  of  Education.  121  111.  2!)7. 


SECTARIAN    INSTRrCTION  713 

Iowa.  Teacliei'.s  iu  the  .scliool  were  accu.stoiiied  to  occupy 
a  few  minutes  each  morning  in  reading  selections  from  tlie 
Bible,  in  repeating  tlie  Lord's  I'rayer,  and  singing  religions 
songs.  The  plaintitf  had  two  children  in  the  .school,  but 
they  did  not  attend  these  exercises.  He  requested  their  dis- 
continuance, but  his  request  was  refused.  The  Iowa  statute 
contained  the  following  provision:  "The  Bible  .shall  not  be 
excluded  from  any  school  or  institution  in  this  State,  nor 
shall  any  i)upil  be  recpiired  to  read  it  contrary  to  the  wislies 
of  his  parent  or  guardian." 

It  was  held  that  this  did  not  violate  the  i)rr)\ision  of  tlie 
Iowa  constitution  that  ''the  General  Assembly  shall  make 
no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibit- 
ing the  free  exercise  thereof;  nor  shall  any  person  be  com- 
pelled to  attend  any  ])lace  of  woi-ship,  jtay  tithes,  taxes,  or 
other  rates,  for  building  or  rei)airing  places  of  worship,  or 
the  maintenance  of  any  minister  or  ministry,"  and  that  the 
plaintitf  was  not  entitled  to  the  relief  sought.  The  school- 
house  did  not  by  the  religious  exercises  desciibed  become 
a  house  of  wor.ship  within  the  meaning  of  the  constitution. 
Moore  v  Monroe,  04  la.  o(»7. 

Kansas.  In  Kansas  it  was  held  (Billiard  v  IJoanl  of  IMii- 
cation,  Topeka,  09  Kan.  53)  that  rejjeating  or  reciiing  ilic 
Lord's  Praj'er  and  the  Twenty-third  Tsalm  in  public  schools 
did  not  constitute  an  act  of  religious  woi-ship.  and  <lid  not 
violate  the  constitution  and  statute,  noi-  did  il  const i(u(«' 
sectarian  insti'uction  or  the  tea<hing  of  r«'ligious  dncli-ine. 
The  Lord's  Prayer  and  the  Twenty-third  I'.salm  wei-e 
repeated  by  the  teacher  without  respon.se,  comment,  oi- 
remark.  These  and  other  opening  exercises  occupied  about 
fifteen  minutes,  and  the  pujuls  were  not  re(piired  to  take 
part  in  them  but  were  only  required  to  ])reserve  (uder  and 
projier  decoi'uni. 

Massachusetts.  The  school  committee  <if  iIh-  tdwn  had 
authority  to  make  an  order  that  the  Bibb'  should  iic  re;id 
and  j»rayer  oll'ered  at  the  opening  of  the  scliools  on  the  moi'u- 
ing  of  each  day.     Hu\   such  an  order  coidd   not  be  made  if 


71 1        'riii;  ('i\  iL  LAW  AM*  'iiii;  rm  kch 

lliO  (MiroiHeiiieiit  ol'  it  viohilcd  llic  r«'li«i;i()us  coiivirt ions  <»r 
the  pupils.  A  school  conniiillrc  li;nl  power  to  cxcIimIc  Ironi 
the  school  a  pupil  viohitinj;  tlic  order  unless  the  parents  ol 
the  child  had  recpiested  Dial  he  Ik*  excused  froui  tlie  oh- 
servauce  of  the  rule.  Sj)iller  v  Wobuni,  12  Allen  (Mass.) 
127. 

Meaning,  How  Determined,  in  State  v  llallock,  1(»  Nev. 
37o,  the  court  for  the  purpose  of  detennining  the  ineaniuj^ 
of  the  phrase  "sectarian  purposes"  examined  the  history  of 
the  State,  in  relation  to  appropriations,  as  shown  by  the 
statutes  and  legislative  journals.  It  was  held  that  the  word 
"sectarian''  was  used  in  its  popular  sense,  and  a  religious 
sect  was  defined  as  a  body  or  number  of  persons,  united  in 
tenets,  but  constituting  a  distinct  i)arty  by  holding  doc- 
trines different  from  those  of  other  sects  or  people,  and  it 
was  said  that  every  sect  of  that  character  is  sectarian  within 
the  meaning  of  that  word  as  used  in  the  constitution.  The 
Nevada  Orphan  Asylum,  a  Roman  Catholic  institution,  was 
held  to  be  sectarian  and  not  entitled  to  share  in  an  appro- 
priation of  public  funds. 

Nebraska.  Exercises  in  public  schools,  consisting  of  the 
reading  of  ])assages  selected  by  the  teacher  from  a  book  com- 
monly known  as  King  James  version,  or  translation,  of  the 
Bible,  in  singing  certain  religious  and  sectarian  songs,  and 
in  offering  prayer  to  the  Deity  according  to  the  customs  and 
usages  of  the  so-called  orthodox  evangelical  churches  of 
this  country,  and  in  accordance  with  the  belief  and  practices 
of  such  churches,  the  pu])ils  joining  in  the  singing  of  such 
songs,  aiid  hymns,  constitute  religious  worship  and  are 
sectarian  in  their  character  within  the  meaning  of  the  con- 
stitution of  Nebraska.    State  v  Scheve,  65  Neb.  853. 

Ohio.  The  constitution  of  the  State  does  not  enjoin  or 
require  religious  instruction,  or  the  reading  of  religious 
books  in  the  public  schools  of  the  State.  The  Legislature 
having  placed  the  management  of  the  public  schools  under 
the  exclusive  control  of  directors,  trustees,  and  boards  of 
education,  the  courts  have  no  rightful  authoritv  to  interfere 


SECTARIAN  INSTRUCTION  715 

by  directing  what  iiistnutioii  shall  Ix*  <;ivei!,  or  wiial  l)()(»ks 
shall  be  read  therein.  Board  of  lOdu*  alioii  ol  Ciiuiiinati 
V  Minor,  2:5  Ohio  St.  211. 

Pennsylvania.  Members  of  this  order  were  eiiii)loyed  as 
teachers  in  the  public  schools  at  Gallitzin  Borough,  I'enn- 
sjdvania.  There  was  no  evidence  of  religious  instruction 
during  school  liours.  But  after  school  hours  tiie  schoolroom 
was  used  by  the  teachers  in  imparting  Catholic  religious 
instruction  to  children  of  Catholic  i)arents.  with  the  consent 
of,  or  by  re(piest  of,  the  parents.  The  Catholic  teachers 
wore  the  habit  of  the  order.  Teachers  are  not  disqualified 
because  of  their  religious  ojunious.  The  court  said  that  the 
school  authorities  had  power  to  employ  members  of  the 
Order  of  Sisters  of  St.  .Joseph  as  teachers  in  the  public 
schools.  The  niend>ers  of  the  school  board  were  Catholics. 
The  voters  of  the  bonuigh  numbered  between  four  and  live 
hundred,  and  all  but  about  fifty  of  these  were  Catholics. 
The  i-eligious  belief  of  teacheis,  and  all  others  is  generally 
well  known  to  the  neighborhood  and  to  ]>ui»ils,  even  if  not 
made  noticeable  in  the  dress,  for  that  belief  is  not  secret 
but  is  publicly  i)rofessed.  The  teachers  might  lawfully 
wear  in  school  the  gai-b  of  their  or<ler.  Ilysong  \  (lallii/.in 
Borough  School  District,  Hi4  I 'a.  i>-U.  See  also  Keligious 
Carb. 

Prayer.  In  the  school  maintained  in  r>r(»«»ks\  illc  <!radeil 
School  District,  lht>  lollowing  ]. raver  was  olVei-ed  at  the 
oi>ening  of  school  exercises  each  da\  :  "(Mir  I-'alher  who  ait 
in  heaven,  we  ask  thy  aid  in  oui-  da.v's  work.  Re  with  ns 
in  ail  we  do  and  say.  (Jive  us  wis(l(»ni  and  strength  and 
j)atience  to  teach  these  children  as  they  shoidd  be  tnnght. 
May  teacher  and  pupil  have  mutual  love  and  respect.  NNatch 
over  these  children,  both  in  schooli-oom  and  on  the  play- 
grcnind.  Keep  them  from  being  hurt  in  any  way.  and  at 
last,  when  we  come  to  die,  may  none  of  our  nnnd>er  be  miss- 
ing around  thy  lliinne.  These  tilings  we  ask  lor  Christ's 
sake.    Amen." 

This   prayer    was    iield    not    to    be    sectarian    insi ruction 


7m;        'nil!  ('i\iL  I, AW  ANh  riii;  riiiucn 

widiiii  llir  iiicaiiiii;^  of  llic  Kciil  ihI<v  ((Hislitiilioii  and  stat- 
utes. 

Tlic  school  was  tioI  a  |>la<c  of  worsliip,  nor  its  teachers 
ministers  of  religion  within  the  contemplation  of  section  5 
of  the  constitution,  although  a  prayer  may  be  offered  inci- 
dentally at  the  oj»ening  of  the  school  by  a  teacher.  The 
Bible  is  not  a  sectarian  book,  an<l  when  used  merely  for 
reading  in  the  common  schools,  without  note  or  comment  by 
teachers,  is  not  sectarian  instruction,  nor  does  such  use 
of  the  Bible  make  the  schgolhouse  a  house  of  religious  wor- 
ship, Hackett  v  Brooksville  Graded  School  District,  27 
Ky.  L.  Be.  1021. 

South  Dakota.  The  constitution  prohibits  sectarian  aid 
and  sectarian  instruction  in  schools  supported  in  whole  or 
in  part  from  the  public  treasury.  In  Synod  v  State,  2 
S.  Dak.  3GG  (14  L.  R.  A.  418)  it  was  held  that  Pierre  Uni- 
versity, a  Presbyterian  institution,  was  a  sectarian  school 
within  the  meaning  of  the  constitution,  and  that  therefore 
appropriations  for  the  university  could  not  be  made  from 
the  public  treasury,  even  as  compensation  to  the  institution 
under  a  contract  with  the  territorial  board  of  education  by 
which  the  institution  was  designated.  The  university  was 
designated  as  one  of  the  educational  institutions  in  which 
a  class  of  students  should  be  taught  the  method  and  prac- 
tice of  teaching  in  the  common  schools. 

Taxpayers'  Presumption  of  Consent.  A\liere  taxpayers  have 
acquiesced  for  twenty  years  in  the  expenditure  of  money 
raised  by  taxation  in  maintaining  public  .schools  in  which 
sectarian  instruction  was  given  contrary  to  the  constitution, 
which  prohibits  such  instruction,  they  cannot  maintain  an 
action  against  school  officers  to  recover  from  them  person- 
ally the  amount  so  unlawfully  expended.  The  school  officers 
had  a  right  to  presume  that  the  taxpayers,  who  had  knowl- 
edge of  the  facts,  consented  to  such  expenditure,  and  the 
court  said  that  under  the  circumstances  it  would  be  inequit- 
able to  compel  the  officers  to  reimburse  the  district  for  money 
so  expended. 


SECTARIAN    INSTKUCTIUN  717 

lu  tlie  .same  cat<e  the  cuiirl  ^svlstaiued  tlie  action  of  the 
school  autliorities  in  hiring  a  part  of  the  parochial  school 
buildiny;  for  the  use  of  the  district,  the  roj^ular  schoolhouse 
beiiig  inadequate  for  the  acconiunxhitiou  of  all  the  pupils. 
The  power  to  rent  was  based  on  the  general  authority  con- 
ferred by  the  statute.  Dorner  v  Scliool  District  No.  5,  137 
Wis.  147. 

Texas.  The  Board  of  lOducalioii  of  Corsicana,  Texa.s, 
ado]>led  resolutions  recommending  (>|»ening  exeri  ises  in  the 
public  schools  each  <iay.  consisting  of  reading  of  extracts 
from  the  Bible,  tlie  recital  of  ihe  Lord's  I'laver  in  concert, 
and  the  singing  of  hymns  in  wliich  the  juipils  were  invited, 
but  not  i-e(piiied,  to  join;  an<l  exercises  were  accordingly 
instituted  and  observed  in  nearly  all  the  rooms  in  liic  high 
school.  Certain  residents  of  the  district,  including  Konnin 
Catholics,  Jews,  and  one  person  who  did  not  believe  in  the 
inspiration  of  the  Bible,  protested  against  these  exercises, 
but  the  trustees  declined  to  discontinue  them,  and  in  this 
action  they  were  sustained  by  the  State  sn]>erintendent  of 
public  instruction.  The  select i(ms  from  the  Bible  which 
Jiave  been  read  in  the  several  rooms  of  the  schools  have  been 
])rinci|)ally  passages  from  the  Old  Testanu'nt.  including 
selections  from  I'salms,  I'roverbs,  and  some  of  llic  old 
familiar  stories  from  the  Old  Testament.  The  selections 
read  from  the  New  Testament  are  usually  the  Sernnm  on 
the  Mount  and  passages  of  like  iciior  In  all  readinu  tin- 
Bible  used  is  King  .Tames  version.  The  reading  of  the  S»  riji- 
ture  was  wilhont  comment.  The  children  were  mtt  reipiired 
to  join  in  the  Lord's  I'rayer.  or  in  the  singing,  but  wt-re 
invited  to  do  so,  and  nn)st  of  them  did  join  in  both  exerci.ses. 
The  reading  of  the  Bible  ami  i-epeating  of  the  Loi-d's  I'rayer 
was  not  conii»ulsory.  and  sonu'  teachers  read  extracts  from 
geneial  literatuic  instead  of  Bible  seh'ctions.  It  was  alleged 
that  these  exercises  nnnle  the  school  a  place  of  worship 
within  the  meanin.u  of  the  constitution,  ;iii(l  lluit  such  exer- 
cises wei-e  sectarian  within  the  pro\ision  of  the  t(»nsi  itut  ion 
prohibiting  sectarian  a|»jMopriations. 


7IS        'nii:  ciN  iL  LAW  AM*  'I'lii;  <iiri;<"ii 

ll  was  licld  llial  I  lie  exercises  (IhI  not  coiisl  it  iile  sectari;iii 
iiisd-iicl ion,  nor  Mini  llie  school  iiitrt  a  reli^^ioiis  society. 
Sucli  a  society  was  delined  as  "a  voiiinlary  ass(»ciat ion  of 
individuals  or  families  niiited  foi*  the  jtiirpose  of  haviiij^  a 
coniinon  place  of  worslii|»  and  to  provide  a  pi'oper  teacher 
to  instruct  them  in  i-eli;^i(»iis  docti'iiies  ami  duties,  and  to 
administei-  the  \arious  ordinances  of  reliuioii."  It  was  also 
held  that  the  exercises  did  not  make  tlie  sclnxd  a  place  of 
worshij)  within  the  meaninj;;  of  the  constitution.  Such  a 
place  of  worship  was  defined  as  "a  ])lace  where  a  number  of 
persons  meet  together  for  the  purpose  of  worshiping  God." 
(Miurch  V  Bullock,  !()!>  S.  W.   (Tex.)   115. 

Wisconsin.  In  State  ex  rel  Weiss  v  Edgerton  District 
School,  7(5  Wis.  177,  considering  the  i)rovision  of  the  Wis- 
consin constitution  ])rohil)iting  sectarian  instruction  in 
schools,  it  is  said  that  it  manifestly  refers  exclusively  to 
instruction  in  religious  doctrines,  and  the  prohibition  is 
only  aimed  at  such  instruction  as  is  sectarian;  that  is  to 
say,  instruction  in  religious  doctrines  which  are  believed 
by  some  religious  sects  and  rejected  by  others.  Hence  to 
teach  the  existence  of  a  Supreme  Being  of  infinite  wisdom, 
power,  and  goodness,  and  that  it  is  the  highest  duty  of  all 
men  to  adore,  obey,  and  love  him,  is  not  sectarian,  because 
all  religious  sects  so  believe  and  teach.  The  instruction 
becomes  sectarian  when  it  goes  further,  and  inculcates  doc- 
trine or  dogma  concerning  which  the  religious  sects  are  in 
conflict.  It  was  held  further  that  the  reading  of  the  Bible 
in  public  schools,  although  unaccompanied  by  any  comment 
on  the  part  of  the  teacher,  is  such  instruction. 


SHAKERS 

Community  of  interest,  no  action  for  personal  services,  719. 

Competency  as  witnesses,  720. 

Covenant,  720. 

Deacons,  actions  by,  721. 

Expulsion,  effect,  721. 

Massachusetts,  722. 

New  York,  722. 

Partition  or  withdrawal  of  property,  not  permitted,  72  1. 

Property,  how  held,  724. 

Trustees,  promissory  note,  725. 

Community  of  Interest,  No  Action  for  Personal  Services.  A 
coiimiiuiity  of  interest  is  an  established  and  distinguisliinu 
principle  of  tlie  association ;  that  the  services  of  each  mem- 
ber are  contributed  for  the  benefit  of  all,  and  all  are  bonnd 
to  maintain  each,  in  health,  sickness,  and  old  age,  from  the 
common  or  joint  fund,  create<l  and  preserved  by  joint 
industry  and  exertion.  And  each  oiu;  by  the  exj)ress  terms 
of  the  covenant  engages  ''never  to  bring  debt  or  demand 
against  the  deacons  nor  their  successors,  nor  against  ;iny 
members  of  the  church  or  community,  jointly  or  severally. 
on  account  of  any  service  or  i)roperty  thus  devoted  and  con 
secratf^l  to  the  aforesaid  sacre«l  ami  charitable  use."  The 
j>laintill',  who  had  been  a  member  of  the  society  or  famiiy 
of  Sliakers  in  New  (Jloucester  Coi-  about  twelve  years  nl'ler 
he  became  of  age,  br()ught  an  a<lion  against  the  society  to 
recover  comix'usalion  foi*  his  services  rendered  while  he  was 
a  member  of  the  family.  It  appeared  that  he  was  oiiginally 
placed  in  the  family  by  iiis  father,  but  after  reaching  his 
majority  lie  signed  the  foi-egoing  covenant.  It  was  held  thai 
the  contract  was  binding  on  him  and  that  he  could  n<»l 
recover  comi)ensation  for  ser\  ices.  W'aiie  \  .Men-ill,  el  al,  4 
Me.  00. 

719 


TIM)  Till-:  ('l\ll.   LAW   AM>  Till;  ("III   K<"il 

Competency  as  Witnesses.  .Mcinltns  (»r  the  r;iiiiily  or  society 
wci'c  held  coiupclciit  iis  wi I iicsscs  in  a  suit  not  directly  <'on- 
ccrninj;  (lie  common  .proitcrly  in  wliicli  tlie  deacons  are 
parties.     I\icliar<lsuii  v  I-'rccman.  i>  Mc.  HT. 

Covenant.  "The  jncamlde  recites  that  it  is  their  lailli  and 
in\arialde  practice  that  'all  who  come  into  niendtersliip  do 
freely  and  vohnitarily  dedicate  and  devote  themsehcs  and 
all  they  j»ossess  to  the  ser\  ice  of  (Jod  foi-<'ver ;  and  il  l)einj; 
llieii-  faitli,  that  the  union  and  relation  of  the  clnirch.  in  one 
joint  interest,  is  a  situation  the  most  acceptable  to  <lod,  and 
productive  of  the  greatest  good  of  any  state  or  situation 
attainable  on  eartli/  tlierefore  covenanted  and  agreed  to- 
gether by  these  articles: 

"1st,  To  gather  themselves  together,  and  be  constituted 
and  formed  in  the  order  of  a  church." 

The  second  article  creates  an  otlice  of  trustee,  or  agent- 
ship,  and  appoints  three  of  the  brethren  thereto. 

By  the  third  article  new  members  are  allowed  to  come  in. 
and  bring  and  devote  to  the  joint  interest  of  the  church,  all 
such  property  as  they  justly  hohl,  etc.  The  joint  interest  of 
the  church  thus  formed  by  the  free-will  otTerings  of  the  mem- 
bers respectively,  shall  be  jjossessed  and  hehl  by  the  whole 
body  jointly,  as  their  natural  an<l  religious  right ;  that  is, 
every  individual  of  or  belonging  to  the  church  shall  enjoy 
equal  rights  and  privileges  in  the  use  of  all  things  pertaining 
to  the  church,  according  to  their  order,  and  as  every  one  has 
need,  without  any  difference  being  made  on  account  of  what 
any  one  brought  in.  ''And  it  shall  be  the  dutv'  of  all  the 
members  to  su]>port  and  maintain  the  joint  interest  of  the 
church,  according  to  their  several  abilities  as  members,  for 
the  good  of  the  whole." 

The  fifth  article  makes  "it  the  duty  of  the  trustee  or  agent- 
ship  to  take  charge  of  all  the  i)roi)erty  dedicated,  devoted 
and  giv<Mi  u]),  as  aforesaid,  to  the  joint  interest  of  the  church, 
or  that  may  thereafter  be  given  or  devoted  for  the  benefit  of 
the  church."  "The  said  joint  interest  shall  be  hebl  by  them  in 
the  (ajiacity  of  agents  or  trustees.  an<l  shall  be  and  remain 


SHAKIOKS  Tl'I 

forevei'  inviolably  luulei-  the  i:niv  ;iii<l  dvi-isiglii  and  al  ilic 
disposal  of  the  ti-nstee  or  agentshiji  ot  ilu*  chuiTh,  in  a  con- 
tiniial  line  ol'  succession;  that  flie  transaclions  of  Uu'  triis 
tees  in  the  nse  and  disposal  ol'  the  joint  inlcresi  shall  he  for 
the  mutnal  l)enelil  of  the  church  and  in  hcinill  ol  (he  winde 
body,  and  to  no  j)ei-sonal  end  or  purpose  wiiatever.  Hut  the 
trustees  shall  be  at  liberty,  in  union  with  tiie  body,  to  make 
presents  and  bestow  deeds  of  charity  upon  such  as  ihey  may 
consider  the  real  objects  that  are  without."  in  case  of  a 
vacancy  in  the  trusteeship  the  duties  are  to  Ik-  nansferred 
and  devolve  on  a  successor  to  be  appointed  so  thai  each  indl 
vidual  api)oiuted  to  the  ollice  of  trusteeship  shall  be  invested 
with  the  power  and  authority  of  nuuia{;inji  and  disposing  of 
the  property  jind  interest  of  the  church." 

7th,  As  the  whole  end  and  desijj;!!  of  oui-  thus  uniting 
in  church  relation  is  to  receive  and  diffuse  the  manifold  gifts 
of  God  to  the  mutual  comfoi't  and  happiness  of  each  other, 
as  brethren  and  sisters  in  the  gospel,  and  f(u  I  he  iclief  of 
the  poor,  the  widow,  and  the  fatherless,  and  such  as  may  he 
deemed  real  objects  of  charity;  no  one  shall  make  any 
account  of  laboi-  or  properly  or  services,  devoted  by  us  to 
the  j>urposes  aforesaid,  or  bring  any  charge  of  debior  dam- 
ages, or  hold  any  dennind  whatever  against  the  cliuiih,  oi' 
community,  or  any  member  thereof,  on  account,  either  of 
services  or  of  property  given,  rendered  or  consecrat'.'d  to  the 
aforesaid  sacred  and  charitable  uses. 

The  third  article  precludes  any  claim  to  a  division  to  be 
made  according  to  what  eacli  brought  in.  (Jass  and  Honta 
v  Wilhite,  2  Dana   (  Ky. )    170. 

Deacons,  Actions  By.  Deacons  may  sue  for  trespass  on 
society  ju-ojieily.     AinhM-son  \    r>ro(l<.  :'.  Me.  'J\'.\. 

Expulsion,  Effect.  Tlic  plaint  ill'  was  cxpclltMl  liuni  ihc 
society  for  refusing  to  conform  and  subject  herself  to  the 
counsels  and  directions  of  the  idders.  She  was  md  entitled 
to  daumges  for  such  expulsion  foi-  the  icason  iliat  she  hail 
signed  the  covenant  in  which  she  agi-eed  to  coiifonn  to  the 
I'ules    ami    orders    of    the    society,    which    vested    su|M'eme 


7l'2  Tin:  (MX  IL   LAW   AND  TIN;  (IHIM-II 

;iii(li()ri(_v  ill  tlic  iiiiiiislcrs  ;iinl  ciders.  'I  In-y  li;i<l  ;iiil  liority 
io  ('.\|K'I  ;i  tiiciiilx'r.  Tlic  c'wW  court  could  (»iily  iiKinire  as 
to  llic  aiilliority  vested  in  tlie  iiiiiiistei-s  and  «*lders,  who 
could  not  deteniiine,  tlie  (luestion  whether  accordiiig  to  the 
rules  of  the  society,  the  plaintill'  lia<l  been  juoperly  exi)elled. 
In  this  case  the  jdaintitr  was  <harged  with  entei-taining 
opinions  and  i>roninl<i;atinji;  <loct fines  within  the  society  at 
variance  with  the  estal»lished  helieC  :iii(i  siiltvcisive  of  tlie 
or<;anizalion.  (Irosvenoi-  v  United  Society  of  I'clicvers.  IIS 
:S[ass.  7S. 

Massachusetts.  In  J^awrence  v  Fletcher,  S  Mete.  (Mass.) 
]5.">,  it  was  held  that  under  the  Massachusetts  constitution 
the  Shakers  are  a  sect  or  denomination  of  Christians,  and 
without  reference  to  the  act  of  1785,  chap.  51,  they  are 
included  in  the  act  of  ISll.  chap.  (>,  respecting  public  wor- 
ship and  religious  freedom,  and  after  the  passage  of  that  act 
had  full  power  to  receive  donations,  gifts,  and  grants  to 
manage,  imi)rove,  and  use  the  same,  and  to  elect  suitable 
trustees,  agents,  or  officers  therefor;  and  that  they  were 
equall}"  within  the  purview  of  the  act  of  1834,  chap.  183, 
and  of  the  revised  statutes,  chap.  20,  sec.  25,  and  that  by 
force  of  the  act  of  1811,  chap.  6,  if  not  legally  empowered 
before,  they  were  authorized  to  elect  deacons  or  trustees  to 
take  aTid  hold  and  manage  the  property  of  the  community. 

New  York.  It  was  held  in  Feiner  v  Keiss,  98  A.  I).  (N.  Y.) 
40,  that  the  society  of  Shakers  at  Mt.  Lebanon,  New  York, 
was  not  a  religious  corporation  but  a  voluntary  unincor- 
porated society  formed  by  the  consent  of  the  individuals 
composing  it  for  religious  and  business  purposes  aiul  which 
has  obtained  by  various  statutes  the  corporate  power  to 
have  pro]ierty  held  by  trustees  in  i)erpetual  .succession.  It 
was  also  held  that  the  .society  need  not  obtain  an  order 
of  court  for  the  sale  of  its  pro})erty,  but  that  such  a  sale  was 
valid  if  made  by  the  trustees  in  the  manner  pointed  out  by 
the  statutes  and  by-laws  of  the  society,  and  esi)ecially,  as 
in  this  case,  where  such  a  conveyance  was  approved  in  writ- 
ing bv  the  ministry  and  elders  of  the  society.     Such  a  con- 


SHAKERS  7l';: 

veyaiice   was   held   sufficieut   to   transfer   the   title    to    the 
property. 

The  society  at  Watervliet,  New  York,  had  existed  many 
years  prior  to  ISoD,  wlicn  an  act  was  passed  relative  to  the 
status  of  societies  of  Shakers  and  declaring  the  rights  an<i 
duties  of  trustees.  The  Watervliet  society  was  an  oll'shoot 
of  the  ])arent  society  at  New  Lebanon,  and  it  is  a  tiiiida- 
nieiilal  rule  and  j)rinciple  pervading  these  communities  that 
there  shall  be  no  individual  owncrshi])  of  jMoperty,  but  that 
all  the  property  held  l)y  individuals,  on  their  admission  t<> 
tiie  society,  shall  be  surrendered,  and  all  acquired  in  the 
prosecution  of  its  business  shall  be  held  for  the  common 
l)urposes  and  uses  of  the  ag.uregate  body.  The  society, 
although  called  in  the  covenant  a  church,  is  not  solely 
organized  for  i>urposes  of  religion.  Prior  to  IS:*)!)  the  local 
title  to  the  proi)erty  of  the  society  was  vested  in  ami  held 
by  trustees,  appointed  from  its  members  in  trust,  for  the 
uses  ami  ])uri)oses  exjtressed  in  the  covenant,  and  subject 
to  the  rules,  conditions,  an<l  legulations  therein  ])res(ribed. 
Each  trustee  executed  iijion  his  appointment  a  written 
declaration  of  the  trust,  and  their  authority  and  powers 
were  defined  in  the  covenant.  The  trust  was  for  the 
benefit  of  the  entire  society,  and  not  for  any  private  inter- 
est. The  act  of  1S."I0,  chap.  174,  declared  that  all  deeds  of 
trust  of  real  or  ])ersonal  estate,  executed  and  delivei-ed  jtrior 
to  January  1,  1830,  to  any  persons  in  trust,  for  any  rnite»l 
Society  of  i)eo]»le  called  Shakers,  shall  be  valid  and  elVect- 
ual  to  vest  in  tiie  trustees  the  legal  estates  and  intei-esls  con- 
veyed, for  the  uses  <leclared  in  sinli  deeds,  oi-  declared  in 
any  declaration  of  trust  executed  by  the  trnslees  in  the 
same  manner,  and  to  the  same  elVe<-t  as  before  .Tanuarv  1, 
1830,  and  the  act  contirmetl  all  linsis  cicaled  prior  to  .lan- 
uary  1,  1830.  The  act  provided  that  the  trust  shonld  con- 
tinue and  devolve  on  the  successors  of  the  existing  trustees. 
The  act  also  authorized  I'liluit'  trnsts.  The  elVect  of  the 
act  was  to  make  the  tiaistees  a  corporate  body,  and  the 
property  held  by  them  cor|)(Hale   |iroperty.  and,  therefore. 


71' I  Till':  ('I\lh   LAW   .\M»  'llli:  (111   I.Mll 

;iH  ;ic(i<»M  rchiliiijf  lo  a  coiilriicl  l»y  IIh;  society  <"oul«l  Ix; 
iiiiiiiit;iiiMMl  jif^ainst  the  truHtoes  as  Huch  and  enforced  agaiiiHt 
coi-poi-ate  jii-operty  in  their  hands.  White  v  Miller,  71 
X.  V.  lis. 

Partition  or  Withdrawal  of  Property,  Not  Permitted.  Several 
persons  intending;  to  form  a  society  of  Shakers,  entered  into 
a  covenant  to  snrreiKlci-  to  the  society  all  their  common 
l)roperty.  The  joint  interest  of  the  chnrch  thns  formed  l>y 
the  five-will  olferinjis  of  the  meiiihers,  respectively,  shall  be 
l)ossessed  and  held  hy  the  whole  body  jointly  as  their  mitnral 
and  relijiions  ri<;ht  ;  that  is,  evei'y  indixidiial  of.  l»elon;,Mnii 
to  the  chnich,  shall  enjoy  e(pud  riiihts  and  jji'ivilejjjes  in  the 
use  of  all  thinj^s  jtertaining-  to  the  church,  according  to  their 
order  and  as  everj'one  has  need,  withont  any  difference  being 
made  on  account  of  A\hat  anyone  brought  in.  The  atfairs 
were  to  be  managed  by  a  tiustee.  who  was  given  large  dis- 
cretionary powers  in  the  administration. 

By  the  7th  article  the  mend)ers  of  the  community  exjjressly 
disclaim  an^^  intention  to  make  any  demand  as  compensa- 
tion for  services,  and  woiild  not  present  any  claim  or  debt 
or  damage  on  account  of  any  j)roperty  given,  rendered,  or 
consecrated  for  the  sacred  uses  of  the  society. 

Two  persons  who  had  seceded  from  the  society  brought  an 
action  to  procure  a  i»artition  or  division  of  the  property, 
and  an  assignment  of  the  amount  claimed  by  them  to  be 
due.  It  was  held  that  such  an  action  could  not  be  main- 
tained for  the  reason  that  the  articles  of  agreement  expressh' 
declared  the  intention  of  all  parties  to  relinipiish  their 
claims  to  the  jiroperty  given  to  the  community.  The  prop- 
erty was  not  to  be  held  by  the  mend)ers  by  a  joint  and  several 
interest  but  was  to  be  held  by  the  community  as  a  unit.  The 
members  were  entitled  to  use  the  property  as  needed  for 
their  sui)])ort  but  could  n(»t  withdraw  it  from  the  common 
fund.    Gass  and  Bonta  v  Wilhite.  '2  Dana  (Ky.  I   170. 

Property,  How  Held.  As  early  as  171)1  a  company  of  per- 
sons denominated  Shakers  formed  themselves  into  a  com- 
munitv  in  the  town  of  Harvard  as  a  religious  society  and 


SHAKERS  TlT. 

entered  into  covenant  relations  with  each  other  as  a  chureli 
according  to  their  peculiar  faith  and  tenets.  As  early  as 
March,  1801,  they  chose  deacons  and  a  clerk,  and  by  mutual 
agreement  under  seal  appointed  their  deacons  and  their  suc- 
cessors in  office  to  hold  the  property  of  the  church  and  to 
have  the  management  of  its  temporal  concerns;  in  December, 
1814,  they  new  modeled  their  covenant,  making  it  more  full 
and  formal,  and  made  a  new  arrangement  in  regard  to  the 
office  of  deacon,  constituting  a  part  family  deacons,  giving 
them  the  oversight  of  their  domestic  or  internal  concerns, 
and  constituting  oilier  deacons  or  trustees  to  whom 
were  committed  the  charge  of  their  property  and  business 
with  the  world,  which  society,  in  all  its  essential  features, 
continues  under  the  same  organization  to  the  present 
time. 

A  transfer  of  certain  ^jroperty  to  the  trustees  of  this 
society  was  sustained.  Such  a  transfer  need  not  have  been 
to  the  society  by  name  nor  to  the  deacons.  A  transfer  to 
Ihe  trustees  was  sufficient,  who,  as  such,  as  well  as  their  suc- 
cessors, were  capable  of  taking  and  holding  property.  It 
was  not  necessary  to  name  the  trustees;  a  description  which 
distinguished  tlicm  from  all  others  was  sufficient.  Lawrence 
V  Fletcher,  8  Mete,  (aiass.)  15;?. 

The  constitution  of  this  society  required  the  legal  title  of 
all  its  pro]»erty  to  be  vested  in  trustees,  upon  a  declara- 
tion of  trust,  designed,  in  a  convenient  and  legal  nianiu  r, 
to  accomjilish  the  i)uri»ose  of  having  all  things  common.  A 
judgment  rendeix'd  against  tiie  trustees  of  the  church  family 
of  Shakers,  and  the  successors  of  said  tnistccs  in  their 
official  ca))acity,  ^\■as  held  valid  and  conhl  be  salistied  \\itii- 
out  the  aid  of  a  bill  in  ecpiity,  by  execution  levied  upon 
property  of  the  church,  of  which  the  legal  title  is  held  l>y 
the  trustees.    Davis  v  liradfoi-d,  58  N.  II.  47(>. 

Trustees,  Promissory  Note.  This  society  was  incorporated 
with  a  membership  of  about  one  hundred,  which  was  con- 
stantly changing  by  additions,  withdi-awals,  and  dt'alhs. 
The  pioperty  was  held  in  common  without  any  indivi<lual 


7L'<;  Tin-:  ('l\IL   LAW  AM)  Till;  (IK   K<1I 

iiitciH'sl  ill  iiiiy  iiM'inlx'f.  aiHJ  is  iii;iii;ig('<l  jiiid  disjtoscd  of  for 
the  purposes  of  the  society  by  certain  trustees  chosen  l>y  the 
society  from  time  to  time.  An  action  on  a  jironiissory  note 
given  by  tlu>  Irnslces  in  behalf  of  IIm;  society  was  hcM  prop- 
erly brought  in  equity  against  the  society  and  the  trus- 
tees. Society  of  Shakers  at  IMeasant  Hill  v  Watson,  (iS  Fed. 
7:U). 


SLANDER 

Archbishop's  criticism  of  priest,  727. 

Minister,  727. 

Privileged  statements,  church  trial,  727. 

Archbishop's  Criticism  of  Priest.  The  archbishop  of  Mil- 
waukee, .si)eakiiig  in  a  Komaii  ('atholic  .service  in  a  chnrch 
at  West  Bend,  «ai<l  of  tlie  priest  in  charge  of  the  church  at 
Barton  that  ''Father is  not  responsible  or  he  is  excus- 
able, or  he  may  not  be  entirely  of  a  sane  mind  as  he  was 
injured  in  his  brain  in  a  railroad  accident.  That  he  is  no 
more  the  parson  or  priest  of  Barton,  and  that  he  had  taken 
all  rights  away  from  him,  and  that  the  congregation  no 
more  acknowle<lge<l  him  as  parson  or  priest,  and  that  he 
has  good  reason  to  transfer  him."  It  was  held  that  these 
words  were  slanderous  per  se.  Hellstern  v  Katzer,  103 
Wis.  391. 

Minister.  In  Klsas  v  Browne,  (IS  (Ja.  117,  it  was  held  that 
to  charge  a  minister  of  the  gospel  with  collecting  money  for 
a  specific  object,  and,  instead  of  so  approj)riating  it,  with 
end)ezzling  and  applying  it  to  his  own  wi-ongful  uses,  is 
actionable;  if  not  imj)nting  to  him  a  crime  i»unishable  by 
law,  it  is  certainly  charging  him  with  being  guilty  of  a  de- 
basing act,  wliich  may  exclude  him  from  society. 

Privileged  Statements,  Church  Trial.  Slan<lerous  state- 
ments made  by  one  being  examined  as  a  witness  in  a  church 
trial,  which  is  c<)nducte<l  according  to  ecclesiastical  discip- 
line, are  not  privileged  statements,  and  can  be  proved  in  a 
j)rosecution  for  defamation  of  character.  Grant  v  State, 
Ul  Ala.  !)0. 


727 


SPIRITUAL  AND  PHILOSOPHICAL  TEMPLE 

Division,  minority's  right,  728. 

Division,  Minority's  Right.  The  society  ijurchased  land 
oil  which  it  erected  a  church  buihiin^,  the  exi)ense  of  which 
w  as  borne  by  members  of  the  society.  Afterward  a  division 
arose  in  the  society  and  part  of  its  members,  constituting 
a  minority',  ])rocured  the  incorporation  of  a  new  .society.  In 
an  action  involving  the  title  and  possession  of  the  property 
of  tlie  society  it  was  held  that  the  corj)oration  organized  in 
jiroceedings  taken  by  the  minority  was  a  valid  corporation 
nnder  the  statnte.  Si)iritnal  and  Philosophical  Temple  v 
Vincent,  127  Wis.  Jr,;  105  N.  W.  (Snp.  Ct.  Wis.)  1026. 


72S 


SPIRITUALISTS 

Camp  grounds,  729. 

Devise  rejected,  729. 

Trust  sustained,  729. 

Unincorporated  society,  cannot  take  bequest,  730. 

Camp  Grounds.  Tlic  jissochilion  w.is  incoipoi-atcd  in  1ST7 
by  statute.  Tlie  scliciiie  of  llie  corjxn'.ilioii  iiM  liidt'd  n  taiuj) 
ground  with  wliarf,  iiotel  and  oilier  pnldic  l»iiildiii<is,  |»iivat»' 
residences  and  cottages.  The  incorpoiatctrs  wnc  s|.iiitu:tl- 
ists,  and  came  togetlier  for  the  purpose  cd'  aeciuiring  and 
developing  some  phiee  upon  the  .seashore  as  a  summer  resort 
for  spiritualists,  inci<lentally  as  a  site  for  spiritualists'  camp 
meetings.  The  society  erected  a  temple  ami  atiditorium  in 
which  to  conduct  its  exer<-ises.  A  camp  meeting  was  held 
each  year.  The  corporation  |)aid  all  the  expenses  of  the 
meeting.  Tn  July,  181)5.  the  cor]»oration  made  a  lease  of  the 
property  to  its  trustees.  It  was  held  that  the  society  had 
authority  to  establish  and  maint.iin  a  cam])  meeting  on  its 
pro])erty.  Nye  v  Whittemore,  \U:\  Mass.  20S.  See  also  article 
on  Camp  Meetings. 

Devise  Rejected.  A  West  Virginia  will  contained  a 
devise  to  a  trustee  for  the  benefit  cd'  the  l'"'irst  Spiritualist 
Church  of  Baltimore.  This  was  ludd  void  foi-  nncnlainty. 
Miller  v  Ahrens,  150  ImmI.  (IN. 

Trust  Sustained.  A  will  contained  the  following  residuary 
clause:  "All  the  rest,  residue,  and  renuiinder  nl  my  estate, 
real  and  personal,  wlmlsoevcr  and  wheresoever  found,  I  give 
and  becpieath  unto  my  executors  hereinafter  named,  and 
their  successors  in  trust,  for  the  jmrc  base  (d'  books  upon  the 
Philosophy  of  Siiirilnalism.  not  sectarian,  or  <d"  any  ci'eed, 
church,  or  dogma,  but  (d'  free  liberal  bearing.  Said  books 
to  be  placed  by  my  exe<-utois  where  they  can  be  f i (»e  to  all 

729 


7:io        Tin-:  cixil  law  and  tiii:  cmiicii 

wlio  <l('sir('  t<>  lliiiik  lor  llu'iiisclvcs,  ;iii<l  who  inc  sccUin;^  ior 
the  trulli  from  Hie  tnic  ;iimI  livin;;  <lo<l.  loi-  I  liclicvc  in  om- 
God,  one  clnn'cli,  ;iii(l  one  coniil  ry  :  lirsl ,  t  lie  ( Jrciil  I  'iikiiowii ; 
soroiid,  llu'  whole  huniiin  i-jicc,  ;is  one  family;  fhifd,  llit; 
whole  globe,  the  home  of  all  nations — thai  is  my  Trinity," 

It  was  li(d<l  that  the  i-csiduai-y  jiift  was  expi-csscd  in  terms 
snfliciently  cei-tain  to  enable  it  to  Ite  can-ied  into  ell'ect  ; 
that  though  the  trust  was  a  perpetuity,  which  execntois  and 
their  successors  could  not  execute,  yvi  it  was  also  a  charity, 
which  a  court  of  ecjuity  could  not  permit  to  fail  for  want  of 
a  trustee.    Jones  v  Watford,  C2  N.  J.  Eq.  339. 

Unincorporated  Society,  Cannot  Take  Bequest.  The  Pro- 
gressive Spiritualists'  Society  was  an  unincorporated  vol- 
untary religious  association  and  as  such  association  was 
incapable  of  taking  a  direct  bequest  to  it.  Fralick  v  Lyford, 
107  A.  D.  (N.  Y.)  543. 


SUBSCRIPTION 

Building  committee,  action  by,  731. 

Condition  accepted,  731. 

Condition,  variation,  732. 

Condition,  specified  amount  to  be  raised,  733. 

Consideration,  733. 

Defective  incorporati(jii,  vvlicu  a  defense,  733. 

Existing  debt,  733. 

Liability  is  several,  734. 

Mutuality,  734. 

Performance  by  society,  735. 

Perpetual  liabilitj',  736. 

Promissory  note,  736. 

Revocation,  737. 

Roman  Catholic  Church,  special  purpose,  737. 

Special  agreement,  738. 

Subscriber's  death,  effect,  738. 

Subscriber's  intention  as  to  object,  738. 

Subscription  note,  validity,  739. 

Sunday,  739. 

Sunday  school,  739. 

Title  to  fund,  740. 

Unincorporated  society,  740. 

Withdrawal  from  society,  effect,  741. 

Building  Committee,  Action  By.  A  promise  to  pay  to  a 
lniildin<i  conuiiittcc  a  ci'ilain  amount  of  money  for  Ihe  ])ur- 
pose  of  eroding  a  meelinglionse,  of  which  commillee  the 
promisor  was  one,  may  be  maintained  against  hi  in  in  tlic 
name  of  the  other  members  of  tlie  committee  or  the  survivors 
of  them.  Sucli  action  was  hebl  maintainable,  even  Ihongh 
the  edifice  bad  been  finished,  and  the  conunittee  di.schargetl 
from  furlher  duty.    rhand)ers  v  Calhonn,  18  Ta.  St.  VA. 

Condition  Accepted,  ^^'here  one  signs  a  subscription  for 
the  erection  of  a  churcli,  njxm  condition  tliat  a  certain 
amount  be  sid>s(ril>ed,  together  with  an  agreement  that  lie 
sliould  be  re]»aid  the  sunt  he  had  expended  in   tlie  ere«-tion 

731 


7::l»  TIIIO  (MN'II.  I.AW  AM)  'I'ili:  (TUTKC^H 

of  a  teinporaiy  chaiJi'l,  siicli  a}ii(M'iii<'iil  lollowcd  hy  lln' 
repayiiKMit  (onstitntes  a  binding  contract  between  the 
parties,  wliicli  cannot  be  revoked  e\'ce]»t  ])y  nmtnal  consent 
nor  rescin<led  except  npon  al)aiidoiinient  of  the  scheme  or 
failnre  1o  collect  the  amount  agreed  npon. 

AVhei'e  snbsci-iption  to  a  clnu-ch  hnihling  fnnd  is  condi- 
tioned on  a  certain  anionnt  being  snltsciibed  a  siibscril»er 
is  not  ])rejndiced  by  a  finding  that  the  required  amount  waK 
snl>scribed,  wlien  the  evidence  shows  tliat  inclnding  his  sub- 
scription, an<l  the  anionnt s  collected  for  memorial  windows, 
sale  of  pews,  and  money  raised  at  a  church  fair,  the  amount 
collected  exceeded  in  the  aggregate  the  required  amount. 
Hodges  V  O'Brien,  11:5  Wis.  07. 

Where  divers  persons  subscribed  to  a  fund  for  the  support 
of  ])nblic  worship,  ])romising  to  pay  to  the  trustees  of  the 
l>arish  funds  the  sums  subscribed,  on  condition  that  the 
trustees  should  manage  the  fund  in  a  certain  manner,  and 
apply  the  income  thereof  to  the  support  of  a  Congregational 
minister  and  to  the  payment  of  the  parish  taxes  which  might 
be  assessed  on  the  subscribers,  it  was  held  that  the  promise 
was  binding  on  the  subscribers,  the  acceptance  of  it  on  the 
conditions  prescribed  being  an  engagement  on  the  part  of 
the  trustees  to  perform  those  conditions.  The  subsequent 
change  of  the  articles  of  faith  adopted  by  the  church,  though 
in  some  essential  particulars,  does  not  absolve  the  parties 
from  the  obligation  of  such  contract.  Fryeburg  Parsonage 
Fund  V  Kiidey.  0  :Nre.  442. 

Condition,  Variation.  A  subscription  for  the  erection  of  a 
church  under  a  resolution  by  which  three  fourths  of  the 
cost  was  to  be  raised  by  subscriptions  running  three  years, 
and  a  contract  was  let  for  the  erection  of  the  church  at  a 
price  of  which  the  subscriptions  were  at  least  three  fourths 
in  amount,  a  subscription  was  held  not  invalidated  by  a 
subsccjuent  increased  cost  of  consti'uction  which  was  pro- 
\  idcd  for  by  increased  subscriptions  amounting  to  at  least 
tlnce  fourths  of  the  cost.  First  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Chnrch  v  Gardner,  28  Pa.  Sup.  Ct.  82. 


SUBSCKII'TION  733 

Condition,  Specified  Amount  to  Be  Raised.  A  subscription 
was  sustained  by  which  subscribers  were  to  be  bound  only 
on  condition  that  the  whole  amount  needed  lor  specified 
repairs  should  be  raised,  it  ai)pearin<;  that  about  one  half 
the  amount  was  subscribed,  and  the  contractor  was  author- 
ized 1o  raise  the  bahmce  by  a  sale  of  the  pews.  This  was 
held  1()  be  a  substantial  comjiliance  with  the  terms  of  the 
subscriiition.  ;McAiiley  v  Uillenger,  20  John.  ( N.  Y.)  89. 
iSee  Stewart  v  Trustees  of  Hamilton  Colle<j;e,  2  Denio 
(N.  Y.)  40:>;  see  also  Hodges  v  O'Brien,  cited  in  note  on 
(^onditio)i  xVccepted. 

Consideration.  Twenty-third  St.  Chnrcli  v  Cornell,  117 
N.  Y.  (;01,  involved  the  validity  of  a  subsci-iption  for  the 
erection  of  a  new  church  edifice.  It  was  held  that  the  sub- 
scription by  testatrix  was  without  consideration,  and  that 
the  church  couhl  not  recover  thereon. 

Defective  Incorporation,  When  a  Defense.  A  jtorson  who 
subscT-ibes  to  a  fund  for  the  erection  of  a  chui'ch  edifice  is 
not  estopped  from  contesting  the  validity  of  the  incorjtora- 
tion  of  the  society  and  may  raise  the  question  in  (lie  action 
against  liim.  First  Ba])tist  Cliurch  v  K;ii)elee,  1(»  NVciid. 
(N.  Y.)  ()0.~). 

Existing  Debt.  In  United  Presbyterian  (Mi.  v  liaird.  (i(»  la. 
2."!7,  it  was  held  that  the  borrowing  of  money  by  ;i  diurcli 
coi'iH)ration  to  pay  its  existing  indebtedness,  with  rcli;ince 
n]»on  ;i  subscription  to  repay  the  borrowed  money,  consti- 
tntes  a  snlTicient  consideration  to  su]»|ioit  the  contract  of 
subscription.     Following  Tinstees  v  (i;n\cy,  ."");'.  111.   KM. 

The  defendant  with  others  nnidc  ;i  subscript i(»n  towiird 
the  payment  of  a  debt  diie  foi-  the  Imilding  of  a  clinrch 
edifice,  which  had  been  erected  befcu-e  the  subscription  was 
made.  The  trustees  bonowcd  money  w  itii  which  to  pay  the 
debt,  relying  on  the  subsciiption.  The  defendiint  claimed 
llint  there  was  no  linbility.  It  \\:is  held  ticit  while  the 
liiistees  by  borrowing  nioiiev  to  |i;iy  the  debt  h:id  not  in- 
ci-eased  their  linbility,  they  Imd  on  the  t.iiih  of  the  subscrip 
tion   incurred  a   ne\\    liabilitv   to  new   pailies.     '"They  have 


TM  Till-:  CINII.   LAW    A\h  Till;  <  IHKm  II 

Iiorruwcd  iiioiicv  rclyiiiji  upon  this  siilisci  ipt  ion  ;is  ;i  iiicaiis 
ol'  piiyiiicnt,  :iii(l  tlic  r;i»t  tli:il  I  licv  have  \isc(l  11m*  money  to 
<lis(liar<;('  a  jn-ccxislcnl  dchl  docs  iiol  clianj^e  Hie  ijHt  that 
they  have  incurred  a  new  an<l  diirerent  liability.  Where  a 
person  subscribes  to  a  public  enterprise,  and  work  is  done, 
money  expended,  or  liability  incurred,  on  the  faith  of  sn<h 
subscription,  it  becomes  binding.''  Trustees  v  (jarvey,  ."3;j 
111.  401. 

A  subsci-iption  to  raise  money  to  ]>ay  off  a  mortf;a;j;e  on 
church  property  was  held  to  be  without  consideration,  and 
not  enforceable  by  the  corporation,  nor  could  the  cori)oratiou 
avail  itself  of  mutual  ])roniises  of  the  subscribers.  Such 
promises  did  not  constitute  a  consideration  in  favor  of 
the  corporation.  l*resbyterian  Church  of  Albany  v  Cooper, 
112  N.  Y.  517.  See  also  notes  on  Sunday  subscriptions 
below. 

Liability  Is  Several.  Subscribers  to  a  fund  for  the  con- 
struction of  a  church  who  have  built  the  church  and  in- 
curred obligations  therefor  on  the  faith  of  the  subscriptions 
are  the  real  parties  in  interest,  who  may  maintain  an  action 
to  collect  an  unpaid  subscription. 

A  promise  to  pay  such  subscription,  even  if  made  directly 
to  a  committee,  is  held  to  have  been  made  to  them  as  agents 
for  all  the  subscribers  who  should  join  in  the  enterpri.se,  and 
the  latter,  as  principals,  may  maintain  an  action  upon  it. 
The  liability  of  each  subscriber  to  such  a  fund  is  a  several 
one,  and  hence  is  to  be  enforced  in  an  action  against  him 
alone.    Hodges  v  Nalty,  101  Wis.  164. 

Mutuality.  In  an  action  on  a  subscription  note  it  was  held 
that  when  several  agree  to  contribute  to  a  common  object 
which  they  wish  to  accomplish,  the  jiromise  of  each  is  a 
good  consideration  for  the  promises  of  the  others,  and  the 
society  was  entitled  to  maintain  an  action  on  the  note.  Con- 
gregational Society,  Troy  v  l*erry,  0  N.  H.  104. 

Where  there  are  mutual  subscriptions  for  a  common 
object,  and  there  has  been  an  expenditure  of  money  in  the 
accomplishment  of  the  object,  a  subscription  is  binding  as 


SUBSCRIPTION  7;:.-. 

a  valid  contract.  Whitsitt  v  Trustees  Preeiii]»tion  i*ri'sl>y- 
toriaii  Cluirch,   11(1   111.   125. 

Performance  by  Society.  Several  i)ers<)iis  joined  in  a  sub- 
scription i'oi-  the  purjtose  of  erectinji;  a  rresbylerian  churcli 
edifice,  the  sum  subscribed  to  be  jtaid  lo  a  Ireasni-er  to  be 
chosen  by  the  subscribers.  Such  a  treasurer  was  afterward 
chosen.  Persons  interested  in  the  movement  subsecjuently 
incorporated  a  Presbyterian  society,  and  a  church  e<lific«' 
was  erected  in  reliance  on  fhe  subscriptions.  The  defend- 
ant, a  subsci-ibei*,  was  pi-eseut  at  meetings  for  the  incor|»ora- 
tion.  and  foi-  oilier  purjxises  connected  \\itli  the  niovemcnl. 
and  was  cojiiiizaut  of  the  various  steps  taken  in  th«*  nuittcr. 
and  expressed  no  dissent.  It  was  held  that  there  was  a  «;ood 
consideration  for  tlie  defendant's  subscription,  which  could 
be  enforced  by  the  treasui-ei-  chosen  by  the  corporation  u|»ou 
proof  of  an  understan(lin<j;  when  the  subscription  was  made 
that  the  edifice  .should  become  a  ]jart  of  the  temporalities  of 
a  Presbvteiian  society  to  be  or«i,anized.  Presbyterian  So- 
ciety V  Beach,  74  X.  V.  72. 

Subscriptions  were  made  for  the  jturjiose  of  ]»urcliasini; 
land  ami  erectinji'  a  nu'etin<;hou.^e,  but  the  house  was  not 
built,  and  no  shares  were  issued.  The  subscriber,  who  had 
taken  ten  shares,  was  sued  on  his  subscription,  but  the  court 
liehl  that  the  society  could  not  recover.  The  subscrijttion 
pajier  was  mutually  ma<le  amonji;  mend)ers  (tf  the  society  ami 
other  friends,  and  with  the  buildinj::  committee,  but  there 
was  no  contract  witli  the  church.  I'^irst  I'niversalist  Society, 
Newbui'y])ort  v  Cunicr,  .'!  Mclc.   (Mass. »  417. 

A  subscrijdion  was  made  for  the  purpose  of  raisin;^  fuii<ls 
to  rebuihl  a  church.  Sid>se(piently,  with  the  subsriibci's 
consent,  the  society  built  a  new  church  edifice,  iclyiiij;  in 
l)art  on  this  subscri|»tion.  The  defendant  icfnscd  to  p;iy  the 
subscription.  It  was  held  that  this  \\as  a  c;ise  of  services 
rendered  and  expenses  incun-ed  by  the  trustees  at  the 
request  an<l  by  the  dii-eclion  of  the  defendant,  ftu-  which  an 
action  would  lie,  upon  the  subscription  papei-;  also  that  the 
subscription  |»aper.  :ind  the  subset|Uenl  reipi'-st  and  direction 


7;:t;        Tin:  cixil  law  and  'iiii:  ciii  i:rii 

(>r  llu'  (Iclcihliiiil  In  tile  (((i-poi-;!  I  ion.  roii^idrrcil  toj^elher, 
cstiiblislictl  ;i  t'uiHlii  ioiKil  |iiMiiiisc  to  |);iy  SI.IO.  fn-ovidcfl  the 
h'lish'cs  ol  llic  cliiiicli  would  rictt  ;i  new  cImii'cIi  fdifice; 
iiiid  lli:il  Ilic  roiidi(ioii  Imviii^  liccii  immIoiiikmI  liy  llu;  cor- 
poi'jition  Ix'foiT  llic  rctriictioii  (»r  llic  |troinis«',  tlic  dcffudant 
was  liable  to  pay  tlu'  sum  subsci  ihcd  by  him.  I>arn(*s  and 
others.  Trustees  I'^'irsf  rresl>ylei-iaii  Church.  (Ib-ns  Falls  v 
J'eriue,  !)  Harb.  (X.  V.  i  1M)2. 

Perpetual  Liability.  An  action  was  brou<!:ht  by  the  society 
on  a  subscription  providinj;  for  a  specided  jiaym<Mit  annu- 
ally for  the  sujtport  of  the  ministry  so  loujj;  as  (he  then 
incumbent  should  be  the  minister  of  the  congregation.  The 
minister  was  dei)Osed  by  the  dassis,  but  on  an  appeal  to  the 
synod  that  body  restored  him  to  his  position.  Afterward 
the  classis  at  diHeient  times  declared  the  minister  to  be  in 
full  possession  of  his  ministerial  functions,  and  at  otlier 
times  declared  that  he  must  be  considered  as  having  been 
deposed.  In  the  action  on  the  subscription  the  defense  was 
that  the  relation  of  tlie  minister  to  the  congregation  had 
been  discontinued,  and  tliat  therefore  the  subscription  was 
no  longer  bin<ling.  It  was  held  that  the  action  of  the  synod 
on  the  ai)peal  ]>ractically  disposes  of  the  whole  matter  and 
that  subsetjuent  action  by  the  dassis  had  no  elTect  as  against 
the  decision  of  the  synod.  A  judgment  on  the  subscription 
was  sustained.  DiefTendorf  v  rJeformed  Calvinist  Church, 
20  .Tohns.   (N.  Y. )   12. 

A  subscription  was  held  valid  which  provided  for  an 
annual  jiayment  for  the  support  of  a  minister  so  long  as  he 
remained  in  service,  and  so  long  as  the  subscribers  continued 
to  reside  within  four  nnles  of  the  meetinghouse.  P^irst  Reli- 
gious iSociety  of  White.stown  v  Stone,  7  John.  (X.  Y.)  112. 
See  note  below  on  elfect  of  withdrawal  from  society. 

Promissory  Note.  According  to  Catholic  usage,  the  parish 
priest  is  generally  church  treasurer,  but  with  power  to 
appoint  a  special  treasurer  with  the  ai>proval  of  the  bishop. 
In  this  case  the  plaintiff  had  been  appointed  such  treasurer, 
and  the  luomissory  note  in  controversy  had  been  delivered 


SUBSCKIITION  7;:7 

to  liiiii  by  the  maker.  This  wiis  held  sulliciciit  <h*liver\. 
Where  promissory  uotes  given  in  payment  of  a  subscription 
to  a  church  erection  fund  are  made  in  consideration  of  a 
selection  of  a  site  anti  coniniencenient  of  work  by  a  given 
date,  in  au  action  thereon,  evidence  of  initi.itory  stej)s  and 
discussions  of  a  congi-egation  prioi-  to  tlie  giving  of  the  notes 
is  inadmissible  for  the  jnirjtose  of  varying  their  terms. 
Michels  v  Kustemeyer,  20  \V;ish.  51)7. 

A  promissory  note  given  in  aid  of  the  Kentucky  K;ip(isi 
lOducation  Society  was  held  1o  be  a  valid  subsci-iption.  'i'lic 
society  was  under  obligation  to  appro[)riate  the  money  for 
the  purposes  of  its  charter.  This  was  held  to  be  a  sntlicienl 
consideration  for  the  snbscriidion.  Collier  v  Baj>tist  JMn- 
cation  Societj',  S  B.  Mon.  (Ky.  I  (58. 

Revocation.  A  minister  was  engaged  to  conduct  dedica- 
tion services,  and  solicit  subscriptions  to  be  ajiplied  on  the 
church  debt.  The  request  to  him  for  this  service  was  made 
at  an  informal  meeting  of  the  li-ustees,  pastor,  and  class 
leaders.  The  minister  solicited  subscriptions  during  the 
services,  but  it  was  held  that  he  was  not  the  agent  of  the 
coi*]>oratioii.  A  jx'rson  made  an  olfer  to  jtay  a  specilied 
amount,  which  was  deemed  only  an  olTer,  and  no  contractual 
relation  was  established  between  him  and  the  corporation. 
The  cor])oration  had  not  accfpted  the  olfer,  but  a  short  time 
after  it  was  made  one  of  the  trustees,  not  by  any  sjK'cial 
authoritj'  but  apparently  on  his  own  motion,  cniled  on  ilic 
subsci'iber  to  j)erform  his  jtroposal.  The  subscriber  liiere- 
npon  revoked  and  rei>udiated  his  olfer,  and  in  an  action  liy 
the  corporation  on  the  s\d)scri])ti(ni  it  wii^  iicM  tli.ii  this 
revocation  was  in  lime,  and  that  no  liability  had  been 
created.  Methodist  lOpiscojjal  Church,  Sun  Prairie  v  Sher- 
nmn,  :M\  Wis.  J04. 

Roman  Catholic  Church.  Special  Purpose.  Money  raised  on 
a  subscription  lor  ;i  new  churcli  cdilice  is  iMised  foi-  a  s]>e- 
cial  purpose  and  belongs  to  the  coiigregalion.  and  ii  does  not 
Itecome  the  ]»r(>|)(Mty  of  the  bishojt  of  the  diocese  or  priest 
of  the  jtarish.     Amish  et  al  v  (lelhans  e(  al,  71   la.  170. 


738  Till:  ('l\  II.   LAW    ANh    rili:  <lll   KCII 

Special  Agreement.  A  sHhsciihci-  to  ;i  riind  bciii;;  raised 
for  the  i)ur])ose  of  crcriino;  ;i  clnncli  ;i;:;ic'«l  to  give  the  rent 
of  ccrljiiii  pi'opcrty  loi*  llircc  years.  This  did  not  mean  a 
lease  of  the  i)roi)erly  itself,  l)>it  the  rent  derived  therefrom, 
and  an  action  on  the  snbscription  was  snstained  and  jiulg- 
nient  rendeied  for  the  amount  of  i-ent  jdedged  by  the  sub- 
scriber. Trustees  of  First  Baptist  Church  in  S3racuse  v 
Robinson,  21  N.  Y.  234. 

Subscriber's  Death,  Effect.  Testatrix  joined  in  a  subscrip- 
tion for  the  erection  of  a  church  editice,  which  subscription 
was  on  condition  that  a  stated  amount  should  be  raised. 
Before  the  time  fixed  for  ]»ayment  of  the  subscription,  and 
before  any  expenditure  had  been  made  on  the  church  edifice 
project,  testatrix  died.  Testatrix  did  not  request  the  cor- 
poration to  build  a  new  edifice,  and  the  church  did  not 
promise  that  it  would,  and  there  was  no  endeavor  to  obtain 
subscribers  occasioned  by  the  expressed  wish  or  direction 
of  testatrix.  It  was  held  that  there  was  no  consideration 
for  the  subscription,  which  at  most  was  only  an  executory 
gift,  and  this  was  revoked  by  the  death  of  testatrix.  It  was 
also  held  that  a  subscription  by  several  persons  was  not  a 
consideration  for  any  one,  that  the  executors  could  not  bind 
the  estate  by  their  assent  to  the  subscription,  and  that  the 
church  could  not  recover  the  amount  subscribed.  Twenty- 
third  St.  Baptist  Church  v  Cornell,  117  N.  Y.  (JOl. 

The  society,  although  uuincori)orated,  was  held  competent 
to  maintain  an  action  on  a  contract.  In  this  case  an  action 
was  brought  on  a  subscri)>tiou  to  aid  in  building  a  church, 
but  the  subscriber  died  before  the  orgaui/.ation  of  the  society' 
was  effected.  It  was  held  that  the  liability  of  the  subscriber 
was  terminated  by  his  death ;  and  an  action  could  not  be 
maintained  by  the  society  against  his  estate.  Phipps  v 
Jones,  20  Pa.  2()0. 

Subscriber's  Intention  as  to  Object.  A  subscription  was 
taken  to  raise  funds  for  the  erection  of  a  Catholic  chapel. 
Parol  evidence  was  held  admissible  to  show  the  intention  to 
erect  a  Roman  Catholic  church  for  use  as  a  ]dace  of  public 


SUBSCIJII'TloX  7:!!» 

worship  iH-('oi-<liii<i  to  llic  riles  jiiid  (ci-ciiioiiics  ol'  that  de- 
nomination.    O'llcai-  V  I)e  Goesbriand,  ;{;>  \'t.  ')!):{. 

Subscription  Note,  Validity.  Where  ineiMhers  of  a  religions 
society  which  Iiad  a  jiiiiiisterial  fund  in  the  hands  ol"  an 
incorporated  hoai-d  of  trustees  voluntaiily  snhscrihed  to 
increase  the  fund,  and  afterward  gave  their  jiioinissory 
notes  to  the  trustees  for  the  amount  of  their  respective  sul»- 
scriptions,  it  was  ludd  that  the  notes  were  founded  upon  a 
sufficient  consideration.  J'arol  evidence  that  sudi  notes 
were  upon  tlu*  condition  that  the  ])i-incipal  should  not  he 
called  for  so  long  as  the  interest  continued  to  be  i>unctually 
paid  was  held  inadmissible.  Trustees,  Hanson  Churcli  v 
Stetson,  5  rick.  (Ma.ss.j  50(1. 

Sunday.  A  subscription  made  on  Sunday  to  liquidate  tlie 
indebtedness  of  a  churcli  cori)oration  contracted  in  the 
erection  of  a  building  to  be  used  as  a  place  of  worsliip  does 
not  come  within  the  inhibition  of  the  revised  statutes  of 
Indiana  as  common  labor,  but  falls  within  the  exception  of 
works  of  charity,  and  is  valid  and  enforceable.  Bryan  et  al 
V  Watson,  127  Ind.  42. 

A  snbscri]»tion  on  Sunday  to  aid  in  the  |»ayment  of  ;i 
church  debt  is  valid.  Such  subscriptions  are  deemed  a 
charity  within  the  general  exception  i)rohil)iting  Sunday 
labor.  First  Methodist  l']])iscoi)al  Chui-ch,  V()v\  Madison  \ 
Donnell,  110  la.  o. 

A  subscription  to  raise  money  to  i»ay  foi-  a  ho\ise  (»f  wor- 
ship is  not  invalid  because  taken  on  Sunday  in  a  congrega- 
tion assend)led  for  ordinary  religious  sei-vices.  Allen  v 
Duffie,  48  Midi.  1 ;  see  also  Dale  v  Knej.p.  !>s  I'a.  ::s!t. 

A  subscri]>tion  made  on  Sunday  to  aid  in  the  erection  of 
a  church  is  valid.  See  the  same  case  as  to  a  conditional 
subscription.    Hodges  v  Nalty,  11. "I  Wis.  ."iiil. 

A  subscrii)tion  to  a  church  made  on  Sunday  was  held 
void  in  Indiana.  There  was  no  evidence  of  a  subsecpient 
ratification,  or  a  new  ju-omise.  Cat  let  t  v  Trustees.  .Methodist 
l">pis.  (Ml.,  Sweetser  station,  (II!   Ind.  .".(i."). 

Sunday  School.     In   Kectoi-  v  ( 'r.iw  f(U'd.    i:'.   .\.   \.    I7<I.  the 


740        Till':  ciNiL  LAW  AM>  'riii;  <iii  i;<  II 

♦•Jiurcli  \\;is  licld  ciilillcil  to  n-ctnci"  lioiii  its  Ununtv  treas- 
urer iiKtiicy  (((llcch'd  on  siil»s(i-i|»t  ions  for  ;i  Sniiday  Hchool 
buildiii;^  ruiMJ  of  (lu*  cliiircli.  jilllioii^iJi  liic  Simdjiy  school 
lijid  a  voluntary  organization  ind('|»<'n<l('nt  <A'  the  church. 

Title  to  Fund.  In  Amish  et  al  v  (lelhaus  et  al  71  la.  170, 
it  was  held  that  money  raised  on  a  sul>scri|)tion  for  erecting 
a  new  church  edifice  was  the  j»i'o])erty  of  the  cijugrcgation, 
and  not  the  ]»i<)i»eity  of  the  l)isli(i]»  oi-  priest,  deferring  to 
the  claim  that  hy  "the  laws  and  iiiles  of  the  Koman  <';ifliolic 
Church  the  hishoj)  of  the  diocese  and  the  piiest  of  the  parish, 
under  the  direction  of  the  Itisliop,  ;ii-e  invcsh-d  with  llic 
absolute  control  of  the  funds  and  the  ])roi)erty  of  the  church, 
and  the  laity  have  no  right  to  interfei-e  A\ith  such  control," 
the  court  observed  that  this  rule  might  be  *'api)licable  if 
this  fund  had  been  i-aised  for  the  general  jairitoses  of  the 
church  and  paid  to  the  priest  without  any  obligation  upon 
him  to  applj  it  to  a  specific  purpose,"  but  the  money  hav- 
ing been  raised  for  a  si)eeial  i>urpose,  it  passed  into  the 
hands  of  the  priest  as  a  trust  fund,  and  it  did  not  vest  abso- 
lutely in  either  bishop  or  priest  to  be  dispo.sed  of  as  they 
might  think  for  the  best  interest  of  the  church. 

Unincorporated  Society.  In  l*resbyterian  Society  v  Beach, 
74  N.  Y.  72,  the  defendant  was  held  liable  on  a  subscription 
in  aid  of  a  project  to  erect  a  Pre.sbyterian  church  edifice,  it 
appearing  that  the  subscribers  were  to  i>ay  their  subscri}»- 
tions  to  a  treasurer  to  be  chosen  by  themselves,  but  that  a 
corporation  was  afterward  organized.  The  corporation  was 
held  entitled  to  recover  on  this  earlier  subscription  on  proof 
of  an  understanding  when  the  subscription  was  made,  that 
the  money  was  to  be  raised  for  the  erection  of  a  church  edi- 
fice to  become  the  i)roperty  of  a  Presbyterian  society  to  be 
organized. 

It  is  no  defense  in  a  suit  to  enforce  a  subscription  to  aid 
in  building  a  church  that  the  society  was  not  incorporated. 
A  notice  to  trustees  of  the  society,  after  organization,  that 
the  subscriber  will  not  pay  his  subscription  unless  a  cer- 
tain person  is  excluded  from  si^eaking  in  the  church,  while 


SUBSCRIPT  ION  741 

ilu'  proffered  donation  :i}ii»ears  at  the  head  of  the  list  as  an 
unconditional  .snl)sfrii)tion,  is  not  sullicieut  to  release  the 
subscriber  from  liability.  Snell  v  Trustees,  Merhodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  Clinton,  58  111.  290. 

Where  subscriptions  have  been  made  in  anticijialion  of  the 
formation  of  a  corporation,  and  the  corporation  is  afterward 
formed,  i)aynient  of  such  subscriptions  is  enforceable  in  the 
name  of  the  corporate  body.  Whitsitt  v  Trustees  Pit'eiii|i- 
tion  Presbyterian  Church,  110  111.  125. 

A  subscrij)tion  to  aid  in  erectin*?  a  churcli  editice  niailr 
to  an  unincorporated  religious  organizaticni  inures  to  the 
benefit  of  the  corporation  afterward  created.  Willard  v 
Trustees,  Methodist  Episcopal  Cliurcli  of  Kockville  Center, 
(JO  111.  55. 

Action  u])on  a  subscri])tion  whereby  the  defendant  ag]-ee(l 
to  pay  to  the  j)laintill',  wlio  was  described  in  tlie  sidisciip 
tion  as  the  treasurer  of  an  unincorporated  association,  a 
smn  named  for  the  ])ur])ose  of  aiding  in  the  erection  of  a 
church  editice  for  such  association.  It  was  held  tliat  as  ilie 
association  was  not  a  corporation,  tlie  words  in  the  sub 
scription  describing  him  as  treasurer  thereof  should  be 
treated  as  sur]tlusage,  ami  he  coidd  maintr.in  aa  action  iu  his 
own  name.  That  the  erection  of  the  churcli  editice  by  liie 
plaintiff  was  a  sullicieut  consideration  to  autliorize  a  recov- 
ery.    McDonald  v  (Jray,  11    la.  5()S. 

Reformed  I'resbyterian  Church  \  r.ro\\u.  21  How.  I'r. 
(N.  Y.)  70,  sustained  a  subscri|»tiou  for  the  erection  of  a 
church  edifice  and  for  the  jtastor's  salar.w  although  the 
society  was  not  then  incoi'i>orale(l.  and  it  ^as  held  that  tiie 
cor])oration,  afterwai-d  foi-iued.  was  eulilled  to  ih cover  the 
su])sci'iption. 

Withdrawal  from  Society,  Effect.  A  person  joined  with 
several  others  in  a  written  agreeiuent  to  |»ay  a  specilied 
sum  annually  for  tlie  sui»poi(  of  the  preaihiiig  of  the  gospel 
in  a  ]»articular  churcli.  At  the  end  <>[  \\\n  y;';iis  lie  declined 
to  coiiliuue  annual  payments  on  the  ui-onnd  thai  lie  Innl 
tlianued   liis   relijiious   sentiments,  and    could    not    conscicii 


742  TIIIO  CI  NIL   LAW    AM)  Till;  CI  IT  IK  1 1 

lionsly  colli  rilmlc  io  llic  ohjcrl  s|»<'(irK'(i  in  tlic  coiilnMl. 
Ill  nil  ;icti(»ii  l>y  liic  society  (o  rccov*'!-  |»;iyiii('iils  wliirli  had 
iucni('<l  a  Iter  Ilic  siijiicr's  witlMlrawal  li-oin  the  s()<  i«'t  y,  it 
was  held  lliat  the  contract  coiiliiiiM'*!  l>in(liii^'  (lnTit:<;  the 
life  ol'  the  snltscrihcr,  iiolwillistaiKliii^  a  chaii<^<'  of  i-clij^ioiis 
scntiiiu'iit,  unless  it  (onhl  he  shown  that  he  had  liecn  dis- 
(•haij;(Ml  by  a  vote  of  tlie  scniety.  No  such  discliarj^e  was 
shown.  The  defense  that  to  compel  payment  after  a  change 
of  relifiious  sentiinents  wouM  violate  the  def«Midanl's  rij;hts 
of  conscience  under  the  constitutional  j^uaranty  of  religious 
freedom  was  rejected,  the  court  holding  that  the  agreement 
to  jiay  constituted  a  contract  from  which  the  defendant  could 
not  witlulraw  at  his  own  mere  volition.  First  Congrega- 
tional Society,  Woodstock  v  Swan,  2  Vt.  222;  see  above, 
notes  on  l*erpetual  Liability. 


SUNDAY 

Agent's  appointment,  745. 

Agent's  unlawful  acceptance,  745. 

Amusements,  745. 

Arbitration,  award,  7  Ki. 

Assignment  for  creditors,  740. 

Attachment,  740. 

Attorney's  clerk,  extra  compensation,  747. 

Baker,  747. 

Bank  paper,  747. 

Balloon  ascension,  747. 

Barber,  747. 

Baseball,  749. 

Bill,  acceptance,  749. 

Bill  of  exchange,  indorsement  void,  750. 

Bill  of  sale,  750. 

Bond,  750. 

Business,  750. 

Butcher,  750. 

Camp  meeting,  charge  for  admission,  750. 

Canal  lock-keeper,  751. 

Charitable  institution,  resolution,  751. 

Chattel  mortgage,  751. 

Church,  resolution  to  emplo}'  minister,  751. 

Cigars,  752. 

Commercial  paper,  752. 

Common  carrier,  753. 

Contract,  753. 

Conversion,  driving  horse  beyond  contract  limit,  758. 

Courts,  758. 

Courts,  ancient  Hebrew  custom,  758. 

Courts,  charging  jury,  758. 

Courts,  early  Christian  custom,  759. 

Courts,  New  York  City  magistrates,  759. 

Deed,  759. 

Defined,  700. 

Demurrage,  700. 

Disorderly  conduct,  700. 

Employer  and  emjjloyec,  761. 

Execution,  701. 

743 


711  Tllh:  <"I\IL   LAW   AM)  Till:  (HI  K<  II 

!'( »()»!,  7()I. 

Forcclomire  sale,  7G1. 

( luMios,  7()2. 

(liuning,  dice,  762. 

Ilabeius  corpus,  762. 

Ice  cream,  762. 

Iminodenite  driving,  762. 

Injuries,  actitm  for  damages,  762. 

Insurance,  762. 

Into.vicating  liquors,  763. 

Jews,  763. 

Justices,  extra  compensation,  764. 

Laborer,  hiring,  764. 

Lease,  764. 

Legal  proceedings,  764. 

Legislative  powers,  765. 

Levy,  768. 

Loan,  768. 

Mail  carrier,  768. 

Marriage,  768. 

Meat  market,  768. 

Moving  pictiu'es,  768. 

Municipal  ordinance,  768. 

Necessitj^  769. 

Newspapers,  771. 

Object,  772. 

Omnibus,  772. 

One  offense  onl}',  772. 

Ordinary  calling,  773. 

Payment  on  debt,  773. 

Phj'sician's  prescription,  773. 

Plaintiff's  violation  of  law,  when  no  defense,  773. 

Preserving  projiert}',  773. 

Process,  774. 

Promissory  note,  774. 

Railroad  train,  777. 

Redemption  from  sheriff's  sale,  777. 

Religious  services,  778. 

Rescission  of  contract,  778. 

Sale,  77S. 

Salesman,  services  on  Sunday,  780. 

Saloon,  781. 

Saloon  closing,  mandamus,  781. 

Search  warrant,  781. 

Seaweed,  781. 


SUNDAY  745 

Security  for  good  behavior,  781. 

Seventh  day  observance,  781. 

Slot  machine,  781. 

Social  club,  treasurer  receiving  money,  782. 

Soda  water,  782. 

Stagecoach,  782. 

Statute,  constitutional,  782. 

Statute  of  Umitations,  783. 

Statute,  unconstitutional,  783. 

Statute,  when  retrospective,  783. 

Subscriptions  on  Sunday,  783. 

Sunset,  784. 

Surety  contract,  784. 

Telephone,  784. 

Tippling  house,  784. 

Tort,  784. 

Traveling,  784. 

Trespass,  adjusting  damages,  787, 

Trust,  declaration,  787. 

Vaudeville,  787. 

Violation,  remedy  for,  787. 

Warrant,  787. 

WaiTant  of  attorney,  788. 

\\'ill,  788. 

Agent's  Appointment.  An  appointuieut  by  a  corporation 
on  Sunday  of  an  agent  to  collect  rents  may  be  validated  by 
a  subsequent  receipt  of  rents  from  Jiim.  Flyun  v  Columbus 
Club,  21  R.  I.  5:54. 

Agent's  Unlawful  Acceptance.  An  agent  cannot  bind  liis 
])rinci]>al  by  llie  acc(']»tance  of  an  iiistrumciit  of  guaranty  on 
Sunday,  even  lliougb  it  bears  dale  on  a  .-^ccidar  day.  and  the 
princijial  bad  no  personal  knowledge  of  tbe  unlawt'ul  a<l. 
Moseley  v  llalcli,  108  Mass.  517. 

Amusements.  Tlie  act  of  ISOO.  cli;!]).  5(11.  pi-obibiiing  cer- 
tain amusements  in  Die  cily  »»!'  New  VorU  on  Sunday,  was 
sustained  in  I'eojde  v  lloym,  IM)  How.  Pr.  Tti.  (  Sp.  T.  1  as  a 
valid  exercise  of  legislative  |)ower,  and  it  was  ludd  tliat  (he 
exhibition  on  Sunday  of  a  pbiy  cjlleil  "One  of  Our  reoj)le" 
or  "lirave  Isaac,''  in  tbe  Xew  \<tvk  "Statll  Tlieatei-"  on  tbe 
Bowerv,  was  a  violation  of  tbe  statute. 


710  Till']  ('l\  II.   LAW  A.\"l>  Tin:  CHUKCH 

S(>r\  ices  were  licid  Siiii<l;i_v  ('Vi'iiiM;,^  iiiiihT  tlic  Miispircs  of 
a  sdcicly  culled  "Kecreative  KeligioiiistH,"  and  consisted  of 
])io('('s  of  sacred  music  performed  on  the  organ,  accomj»anied 
by  other  insli-nments  and  a  j^ratnitons  choir;  but  there  were 
some  paid  singers.  An  ad<lress  was  delivered,  alwaj's  in- 
structive; sometimes  of  a  religious  tendency,  sonn'times 
neutral  rather  than  religious,  hut  never  aggressively  irreli- 
gious, and  never  profane.  Certain  hymns  were  printed  and 
circulated  among  the  audience,  but  they  were  never  sung. 
Most  of  the  hymns  could  scarcely  be  called  devotional,  but 
expressed  sentiments  of  adoration  toward  the  Supreme 
Being  and  all  of  them  exhortations  to  'moral  duty.  There 
was  no  public  prayer  or  address  to  the  Deity  other  than 
was  contained  in  the  musical  compositions.  There  was  no 
debating  or  discussion  ;  nothing  dranmtic  or  comic,  or  tend- 
ing to  the  corruption  of  morals,  or  to  the  encouragement  of 
irreligion  or  profanity.  Admission  to  the  body  of  the  hall 
was  gratuitous,  but  tickets  were  sold  and  money  taken  for 
admission  to  reserved  seats.  The  i)lace  was  registered  as  a 
place  for  religious  worshij).  It  was  held  that  the  place  was 
not  a  place  of  ])ublic  entertainment  or  amusement  within  the 
statute  jtrohibiting  certain  entertainments  or  amusements 
on  the  Lord's  Day.  Meetings  for  religious  worship  are  not 
within  the  act.  It  is  not  essential  to  such  protected  reli- 
gious worshij)  that  it  should  be  in  accordance  with  the  reli- 
gion of  the  State,  or  even  with  the  general  religion  of  the 
nation.    Baxter  v  Langley,  :>8  L.  J.  Mag.  Co.  (X.  S.)  Eng.  1. 

Arbitration,  Award.  An  award  of  arbitrators  is  a  judicial 
proceeding,  and  if  nmde  and  published  on  Sunday  is  void. 
Story  V  Elliot.  S  Cowan   (N.  Y.)  27. 

Assignment  for  Creditors.  An  assignment  was  made  and 
delivered  on  Saturday,  but  no  schedule  was  annexed.  The 
schedule  was  attached  the  next  day.  Sunday.  This  annexa- 
tion on  Sunday  was  sustained  in  Clap  v  Smith.  16  Pick. 
(Mass.)  246. 

Attachment.  The  Massachusetts  statute  of  17!»l  fixed 
the  period  of  Sabbath  observance  from  midnight  until  sun- 


SUNDAY  TIT 

set.  Filling  and  delivering  an  allaclinicnl  altiT  sunset  on 
Sunday  was  not  a  violation  ol'  the  statute  regulating  Sun- 
da}'  observance.     .Johnson  v  Day.  IT  I'ieii.  (Mass.)    10(1. 

Attorney's  Clerk,  Extra  Compensation.  An  attorney's  clerk 
engaged  at  a  weekly  salary  to  do  such  thiugs  as  are  usually 
done  by  clerks  in  attorneys'  offices,  is  proliibited,  by  the 
statute  to  prevent  working  on  Sunday,  from  recovering  ol' 
his  principal  a  compensation  extra  his  weekly  allowaiuc  lor 
services  as  a  clerk  performed  on  that  day.  Walts  v  \;im 
Ness,  1  Hill  (N.  Y.j  70. 

Baker.  In  Kex  v  Younger,  5  T.  Rep.  (Eng.)  44i),  it  was 
held  that  the  statute,  2!)  Car.  chaj).  7,  did  not  jnohibit  a 
baker  baking  dinners  for  his  customers  on  Sunday.  See  also 
to  the  same  effect  Rex  v  Cox,  2  Burr.  (Eng.)  785,  which 
involved  the  right  of  the  balder  to  bake  jniddings  and  pics 
and  meats  on  Sunday,  in  aiUlition  to  making  bread,  \viii<li 
was  his  ordinary  calling.  The  baking  of  puddings,  etc.,  was 
hehl  not  to  be  a  violation  of  the  statute. 

A  baker  who  keei)s  his  store  open  for  business,  and  sells 
ice  cream,  cakes,  etc.,  on  Sunday,  is  guilty  of  performing 
worldly  emi)loyment  on   Sunday,  contrary  to  the   I'ennsyl 
vauia  Sunday  law  of  17!)4,  and  tlie  local  acts  of  18").')  relat 
ing  to  Allegheny  County.     Burry's  Appeal,  1  Monag.   I'a. 
Suj).  Ct.  Cas.  (Pa.)  81). 

Bank  Paper.  Commercial  paper  falling  due  on  Sunday 
should  be  presented  on  Monday.  Salter  v  Burt,  1*0  \Ven<l. 
(N.  Y.)  205;  see  various  State  statutes  on  this  subject. 

Balloon  Ascension.  An  agreement  to  make  an  ascension 
in  a  balloon  from  a  public  garden  on  a  Sunday  for  a  com 
pensation  is  a  contract  for  the  ]»erfornunice  of  servile  laboi. 
and  an  action  for  the  compensation  cannot  be  sustiiiiictl. 
Sunday,  originally  established  as  a  day  of  rest  and  religious 
worship,  1ms  become  by  statiite  a  civil  institution,  (o  be 
observed  by  courts,  public  ollicer.s,  and  all  private  citizens. 
Brunnett  v  Clark,  1  Buff.  Super.  Ct.  (Sheldon)   (N.  Y. )  .">()(». 

Barber.  In  Kentucky  (Stratnmn  v  Commonwealth.  i:'.T 
Ky.  500)  a  statute  was  held  unconstitutional  which  nnidc  it 


748        'riii:  (M\  II,  I, AW  AM)  Tin;  ciuiii  ii 

uiilawlul  lo  ujicii  ;i  harlu-i-  .sli(»|(  on  Siiiiday  and  euj^age  in 
the  business  of  barberin};  nn<I  wliicli  imposed  a  penalty 
<liH'('renl  I'l-oni  tlial  applicable  lo  oilier  prohibitions  ol  busi- 
ness on  Sunday. 

Barbei'ing  on  Sunday  was  held  not  to  l»e  u  work  of  neces- 
sity or  cliarity,  and  tlieretoi-<'  not  permissible  under  tbe  Wis- 
consin Statute.     Stark  v  iJackns,  1  !(►  ^^'is.  557. 

Shaving  and  hairdressing  lor  hire  in  a  shop  kej)t  foi-  tin; 
j)urpose  is  a  worldly  eni})loyment  or  business,  which,  if  done 
on  Sunday,  is,  uuless  a  work  of  necessity  or  charity,  for- 
bidden by  the  act  of  April  22,  1794,  Such  an  occupation  is 
not  rendered  a  work  of  necessity  or  cliarity  by  the  fact  that 
there  are  some  persons  whose  beards  require  shaving  daily, 
or  whose  occupations  through  the  week  make  it  dillicult 
or  impossible  for  them  to  get  shaved  except  upon  Sunday, 
when  it  a])i)ears  that  the  shoj)  is  kejit  open  for  all  persons 
indiscriminately,  and  tlie  work  done  is  not  merely  shaving 
but  all  the  work  of  a  barber.  Mere  lap.se  of  time  or  the 
developments  of  modern  life  cannot  repeal  such  a  statute. 
Commonwealth  v  Waldnmu,  8  Pa.  Co,  Ct,  440. 

In  Ex  Parte  Jentzsch,  112  Cal.  408,  it  was  held  that  sec- 
tion .'UOl  of  the  California  Penal  Code,  enacted  in  1805, 
making  it  a  misdemeanor  to  keep  open  and  conduct  a  barber 
shop  or  to  work  as  a  barber  on  Sundays  and  other  holidays, 
was  an  undue  restraint  of  personal  liberty,  and  was  special 
legislation  and  based  upon  an  arbitrary  classification,  au«l 
not  a  proper  exercise  of  the  police  ])ower.  and  was  uncon- 
stitutional and  void. 

In  State  v  Krech,  10  Wash.  166,  it  was  held  that  a  statute 
prohibiting  the  sale  of  goods,  .wares,  and  merchandise  on 
Sunday,  or  the  opening  of  places  of  business  for  that  pur- 
pose, did  not  prohibit  the  opening  of  a  barber  shop  on  Sun- 
day. So  in  Tennessee  (State  v  Lorry,  66  Tenn.  05)  it  was 
held  that  a  barber  keeping  open  his  shop  and  carrying  on 
his  business  on  Sunday  \\as  liable  to  a  penalty  but  was  not 
subject  to  indictment. 

The  New  York  act  of  1805,  chap.  823,  prohibited  barber- 


SUNDAY  749 

iii;^  «»u  Sunday  except  in  Saratoga  Springs  and  In  NY'w  Y<»iU 
city,  where  it  was  ])('niiitte(l  until  one  o'clock  in  tlie  after 
noon.  The  act  was  amended  in  11)07,  chaji.  207,  as  to  Sara 
toga  Springs,  and  was  continued  in  the  Tenal  Law  of  1000, 
sec.  215o.  The  original  statute  was  sustjiined  in  People  v 
Haynor,  149  N,  Y.  105,  and  in  I'eojde  ex  rcl  Bohach  v  Sheritf, 
i;5  Mi.sc.  (N.  Y.)  587,  35  N.  Y.  Suj.p.  1!>. 

Baseball.  It  was  held  in  Capital  City  Athletic  Associa- 
tion V  i'olice  Conmiissioners,  Greenbusli,  0  Misc.  (N.  Y.  i 
liSO,  that  baseball-jdaying  on  Sunday,  for  ])rotit,  upon  jtri- 
vate  grounds,  if  not  within  the  strict  letter  of  the  Pen;il 
Code,  is  a  business  that  is  against  the  public  policy  of  the 
State. 

Three  persons  jdayed  ball  on  j)rivate  grounds  simply  i)i tell- 
ing the  ball  fiom  one  to  another  without  making  any  noi.se. 
Such  j)l;iying  was  held  not  to  be  within  the  jtrohibition  of 
the  New  York  Penal  Code,  sec.  205.  It  was  further  held 
that  to  constitute  a  violation  of  the  statute  the  ]daying  must 
seriously  interrui)t  the  repose  of  the  conununity  on  Sundsiy. 
People  V  Dennis,  35  Hun  (N.  Y.)  :>27. 

B;iseball-i)laying  on  Snnday  at  an  unfrequented  place  is 
not  such  a  breuch  of  the  i)eace  ns  to  make  the  jKirties  play- 
ing indictable  for  a  common  nuisance  in  the  absence  of  evi- 
dence that  anyone  in  the  immediiite  neighborhood  was  dis- 
turbed by  any  disorder  or  behavior  on  the  i»art  of  the  jieojde 
present.  To  constitute  a  breach  of  the  peace  the  peace  must 
]>e  broken  or  disturbed  by  such  disorderly  and  unlawful  con 
duct  as  actually  disturbs  the  peace  ami  (piiet  of  some- 
body in  the  immediate  neighborhood  where  the  acts  c<»ni- 
jilained  of  are  committed.  ConinM)nwealth  v  Meyers,  S  I'a. 
Co.  Ct.  435. 

In  Greater  Newburgh  Amusement  Company,  Inc.  v  Sayer, 
81  ]ilisc.  (N.  Y'.)  307,  it  was  held  that  public  games  of  base- 
ball between  professional  teams  on  Sunday  violated  the 
l»rovision  of  the  Penal  Law  which  prohibits  public  sports 
on  that  day,  although  no  admission  fee  was  charged. 

Bill,  Acceptance.    A  bill  was  drawn  on  Sunday,  but  there 


750  Tlir:  CIN'lL   LAW    AM)  Till;  <  III   |;(  II 

\Mis  no  cvidciicc  ;is  lo  (lie  (l;iy  on  which  il  \\;is  ii((('|»l(*<|.  It 
was  hchi  Ihat  (he  bill  was  not  void  as  violalin};  llic  Siinday 
law.    li('^1)i(^  V  Levi,  1  Ci-onipt.  cK:  -h'V.  (Kn*^. )   ISO. 

Bill  of  Exchange,  Indorsement  Void.  Snch  a  bill  indois*^! 
on  Sunday  is  void.    SaKniar.sh  v  Tnlhill,  V.i  Ala.  '.','M). 

Bill  of  Sale.  An  action  on  a  bill  of  sale  made  on  Sun«lay 
cannot  be  <leleated  by  the  objecti<»ii  of  a  person  who  was  not 
a  j)arty  to  the  sale  and  liad  no  interest  in  the  property. 
Kichardson  v  Kimball,  liS  Me.  4(>o. 

The  execution  on  Sunday  of  a  bill  of  sale  of  personal  i»r(»p- 
erty,  in  pursuance  of  a  sale  made  on  Friday,  does  not  atlect 
the  validity  of  the  sale.    Foster  v  Wooten,  07  Miss.  540. 

Bond.  A  bond  sij^ned  on  Sunday  is  not  void  if  not  deliv- 
ered on  that  day.  Commonwealth  v  Kendig,  2  Barr.  (Pa.) 
448. 

A  bond  executed  on  Sunday  is  void  under  tlie  statute,  but 
not  at  common  law.    Fox  v  Mensch,  3  Watts.  &  S.  (l*a. )  444. 

A  bond  executed  on  Sunday,  but  not  from  necessity  or 
charity,  cannot  be  made  the  basis  of  an  action.  It  was 
secular  labor  and  within  the  prohibition  of  the  statute. 
I»attee  v  Greely,  13  Met.  (Mass.)  284. 

Business.  The  carrying  on  of  one's  ordinary  business  on 
Sunday  is  an  indictable  offense  at  the  common  law,  and  also 
under  the  statutes  of  Tennessee,  if  conducted  so  openly  as 
to  attract  public  attention  and  thereby  tend  to  corrupt 
public  morals.  It  is  no  defense  to  such  prosecution  that  the 
accused  conscientiously  believes  in  observing  and  actually 
observes  the  ''seventh''  rather  than  the  "first"  day  of  the 
week  as  the  Sabbath.    Parker  v  State,  16  Lea  (Tenn. )  470. 

Butcher.  Exercising  trade  of  butcher  on  Sunday  was  no 
ottense  at  common  law.  Kex  v  Brotherton,  1  Str.  (Eng. » 
702. 

Camp  Meeting,  Charge  for  Admission.  A  compulsory  pay- 
ment of  a  fee  for  admission  to  camp-meeting  grounds  at  a 
service  held  on  Sunday  was  held  to  constitute  worldly  busi- 
ness under  the  Pennsylvania  statute.  ''When  the  wayward 
sinner  is  forbidden  entrance  to  the  church  unless  he  hands 


SUNDAY  751 

over  his  uickel  to  the  <looi-ke('i»ei\  the  «hui-ih  so  (leiiiandiiiji 
and  receiviii<>  on  Siiiniay  is  in  no  better  position,  so  far  as 
worldly  business  is  tomerned,  than  woidd  be  the  ciri-us  man 
with  his  one  i)riee  of  admission  to  all  the  several  and 
combined  shows  of  his  monster  aggregation,  or  the  peddler 
with  his  busy  booth."  Commonwealtli  v  Wcidner,  4  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  4:!T. 

Canal  Lock-Keeper.  A  lock-keeper  in  the  em})loy  of  the 
Schuylkill  Navigation  Company  is  not  liable  to  conviction 
for  violating  the  I'ennsylvania  act  of  22d  of  April,  171)4. 
prohibiting  worldly  employment  upon  Sunday,  for  opening 
the  lock  gates  on  the  Schuylkill  Canal  to  admit  of  the  pas- 
sage of  boats  on  the  Saltbath  day.  on  the  demand  of  owners 
or  captains  of  boats  navigating  the  canal.  The  Schuylkill 
River  is  a  ]»ublic  highway,  and  as  people  have  a  right  for 
some  ])urposes  to  jkiss  along  it.  even  on  Sunday,  the  com- 
l)any  must  keep  it  open  and  the  agents  of  the  company  are 
not  to  judge  as  to  the  lawfulness  of  the  travel,  which  is  done 
at  the  risk  of  incurring  the  penalty  prescribe<l  for  the  viola- 
tion of  Sunday,  inflicted  in  the  mode  prescribed  by  law. 
Mnn-ay  v  Commonwealth.  24  I*a.  270. 

Charitable  Institution,  Resolution.  A  resolution  amending 
a  by-law  of  a  charitable  institution  relative  to  relief  of  such 
members  was  held  not  voifl  because  adopted  on  Sunday. 
McCabe  v  Father  Matthews,  2!  Ilnn  ( N.  Y.I  1  10. 

Chattel  Mortgage.  A  ])i-oniise  l)y  the  jmrcliascr  of  mort- 
gaged personal  jtroperty  to  i)ay  the  mortgagee  the  ammmt 
due,  if  the  latliM-  will  snn-cnder  tiie  note  and  mortgage  to  the 
mortgagor,  is  not  witliin  tlir  st:iintc  of  frauds.  It  is  no 
(h'fense  to  a  suit  on  snch  prcuiiise  lliat  the  piii-cliase  from 
the  mortgagor  was  ma<le  on  Sunday,  nor  that  there  was  a 
breach  of  the  mortgagor's  warranly.      I'i'ovcn*  lice  v   Piper, 

OS  N.  II.  :;i. 

Church,  Resolution  to  Employ  Minister.  An  ecilesiMstical 
corporation  may.  at  a  regnlai-  service  on  S\inday.  adojii  a 
resolution  to  employ  a  minister.  Arthur  v  Northlicld  C<»n- 
irreirational  Clnuch,  7:>  Conn.  718. 


752  THE  CIVIL  LAW  AND  THE  CHURCH 

Cigars,  Tlie  sale  of  cigars  on  Hunday  in  the  usual  course 
of  the  seller's  biisinoss  to  a  habitual  smoker  of  cigars  is  a 
violation  of  the  Sunday  law. 

A  hotel  keeper  may  not  keep  open  on  Sunday  a  stand, 
room,  or  other  place  for  the  i)urpose  of  general  sales  of 
cigars  or  tobacco  to  resident  cnstoniers  or  boarders,  how- 
ever it  may  be  as  to  the  transient  guest  who  had  no  oppor- 
tunity to  provide  for  his  Sunday  wants. 

The  court  does  not  know  judicially  that  smoking  a  cigar 
by  one  who  has  acquired  llie  luibit  is  a  necessity. 

The  word  ''necessity,"  as  used  in  the  Sunday  law,  does 
not  mean  an  absolute  or  physical  necessity,  but  a  moral 
fitness  or  propriety  of  the  work  or  labor  done  under  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  particular  case.  It  ought  to  be  an  unfore- 
seen necessity,  or  such  as  could  not  reasonably  have  been 
provided  against.    Mueller  v  State,  7G  lud.  .SIO. 

A  sale  of  cigars  by  a  tobacconist  in  his  shop  in  the  usual 
way  and  for  ordinary  use  on  the  Lord's  Day  is  not  a  sale  of 
drugs  and  medicines,  within  the  meaning  of  these  words  in 
the  Massachusetts  statute  of  1887,  incorporating  certain  ex- 
ceptions into  the  public  statutes,  chap.  98,  sec.  2,  which  pro- 
hibited the  keeping  open  shop  on  that  day  for  the  purpose 
of  doing  business.  Commonwealth  v  Marzynski,  149  Mass. 
G8. 

A  sale  of  cigars  on  Sunday  bj-  a  licensed  innkeeper, 
whether  to  his  guests  or  to  strangers,  was  illegal  under  the 
Pennsylvania  act  of  1794.  Baker  v  Commonwealth,  5  Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  10. 

Commercial  Paper.  A  creditor  drew  an  order  on  his  debtor 
in  favor  of  a  third  person,  which  was  accepted,  and  the 
nionej'  thereon  was  paid  to  the  creditor.  The  entire  trans- 
action occurred  on  Sunday.  The  creditor  was  about  to 
leave  town,  and  the  payment  was  an  accommodation  to  him. 
The  court  held  tJiat  the  transaction  was  not  a  work  of  neces- 
sity or  charity,  and  that  an  action  could  not  be  maintained 
upon  the  acceptance.    Mace  v  Putnam,  71  Me.  2:^.8. 

If  drafts  were  accepted  and  delivered  on  Sunday,  they 


SINI>AV  ::,:'. 

were  void  between  the  i»a flies;  l)ui  if  ilit-y  wi-ii-  lalscl.N 
dated  as  of  aiKiIhei-  day,  and  came  into  tiie  hands  of  an 
iiiiioeent  liohlei-,  wlio  took  them  lor  value  without  notice,  and 
ill  the  due  course  ol"  trade,  the  acceptor  was  estoii]>ed  from 
setting  up  that  defense  iu  a  suit  against  him  by  sucli  hohler. 
But  if  the  contract  of  purchase  was  on  Sunday,  then  it  was 
not  in  the  due  course  of  trade,  and  the  holder  would  not 
be  protected.  The  acceptances  in  this  case  were  dated  on 
Saturday,  but  there  M'as  no  evidence  that  the  hohler  received 
them  on  vSunday,  or  knew  of  any  irregularity  in  their  execu- 
tion.   Harrison  v  I'owers,  7G  Ga.  218. 

Common  Carrier,  ^^'here  cattle  were  received  Sunday 
afternoon  by  a  railroad  coinpaii}^  to  be  transported  over  its 
line  it  was  held  that  such  prohibition  against  Sunday  busi- 
ness did  not  ai)ply;  also  that  the  railroad  company  was 
liable  in  damages  for  failure  to  transi)ort  the  cattle 
promptly,  instead  of  waiting  until  Monday  morning.  Thila- 
delphia,  Wilmington  &  Baltimore  R.  R.  Co.  v  Lehman,  ;")(; 
Md.  200. 

A  contract  for  the  transportation  of  ]»roperty  upon  a 
steamboat  is  not  void  because  made  on  Sunday,  noi-  becatise 
the  voyage  is  to  commence  and  does  commence  Sunday  even- 
ing. Eorses  w'ere  on  Sunday  placed  on  board  a  steamer  for 
transportation,  and  on  that  day  the  freiglit  was  j»aid  and  a 
receipt  taken,  but  there  was  no  contract  rcipiiring  the  trip 
to  begin  that  day.  The  steamer  starte<l  on  Sunday,  and  on 
Monday  was  wrecke<l,  resulting  in  the  loss  of  the  liorses.  It 
was  held  that  the  contract  was  not  void  because  made  on 
Sunday.  Merritl  v  Karic,  iMl  N.  V.  11.".,  alFg.  ;;i  Barb. 
(N.  V.j  :{S. 

Contract.  Though  an  executory  contract  of  sale  made 
on  Sunday  is  illegal  and  not  enforceable,  yet  whei-e  the  c(»n 
tract  is  executed  by  delivery  of  possession  the  title  of  the 
l)roperty  sold  ])asses,  and  the  property  is  not  thereafter  sub- 
ject in  the  hands  of  the  vendee  to  attachment  in  favor  of  the 
vendor's  creditors.     Blass  v  Aiulerson,  HT  Ark.  AS'A. 

An  agreement  <ui  Sundav  between  a  debtor  and  his  cred 


754  Till-:  ('l\IL   LAW  AM)  'I'Hi:  Clil  IMH 

itor  ;iii«l  :i  llii)-<i  immsoii,  IIi;i(  hucIi  third  imtsoii  should  j)ay 
the  debt  iis  :iii  iiccoiniiKMliit ion  to  the  debtor,  iind  the  debt 
was  paid  on  that  <biy,  tl>e  transaction  was  lield  void  under 
the  Maine  statute  afjainst  doinj;  business  on  Sun<hiy,  and 
that  it  was  not  a  work  of  ne«'essit_v  n(»i"  <iiarity.  in  an 
action  by  the  liiird  person  on  a  written  order  j^iven  as  a  part 
of  the  transaction  it  was  held  tliat  he  w;is  not  entitled  t(» 
recover.     Mace  v  IMitnani,  71  Me.  l*:'>s. 

A  letter  written  and  delivered  on  Sunday,  inornisin;^  lo 
pay  for  services,  may  become  the  basis  <»r  a  conli-act  if  theiv 
is  no  evidence  of  actual  accei)tance  on  that  <late,  and  the 
services  are  ])erformed  on  a  week  <lay.  Tuckernian  v 
Hinkley,  J)  Allen   (Mass.)   452. 

If  a  letter  is  written  an<l  delivered  on  Sunday,  request- 
ing and  promising  to  pay  for  the  performance  of  services, 
and  there  is  no  proof  of  an  agreement  made  on  that  day  to 
perform  the  same,  the  person  who  received  the  letter  may 
maintain  an  action  upon  the  promise  contained  therein,  if 
he  subsequently  performs  the  service  on  week  days.  Tuck- 
ernian V  Hinkley,  U  Allen  (Mass.)  452. 

A  contract  for  the  purchase  of  goods  was  initiated  on 
Saturday  and  completed  on  Sunday.  It  was  void,  but  was 
held  enforceable  by  reason  of  the  subsequent  promise  of  the 
purchaser  to  pay  for  the  property  which  was  deeme<l  a  rati- 
fication of  the  original  contract.  Williams  v  I'aul.  4  M. 
&  P.  (Eng.)  532. 

While  an  executory  contract  made  on  Sunday  will  not 
be  enforced  by  the  courts,  such  a  contract  may  be  ratified 
and  reaftirmed  on  a  secular  day,  and  will  then  become  valid. 
In  this  case  a  note  was  discounted  on  Sunday,  and  a  check 
for  the  ]>roceeds  delivered  dated  the  next  day.  but  the  money 
was  not  drawn  until  the  following  Wednesday.  It  was  hebl 
that  the  loan  was  valid.  The  contract  was  not  completed 
until  Wednesday.    Cook  v  Forker,  103  Fa.  St.  401. 

In  Tillock  v  Webb.  5(i  ^le.  100,  it  was  held  that  a  contract 
f(»r  the  use  of  a  horse  and  buggy  on  Sunday  not  for  a  pur- 
pose of  necessity  or  charity  was  void,  and  that  a  j»romiss«uy 


SlNhAV  T.V) 

note  ^iveu  l»y  tli<'  liirci-  ;is  (((iiijM'iisat  ion  for  daiiuijics  to  ilic 
horse  and  buggy,  was  w  it  lion  t  (•oiisi<l«M-atioii. 

A  contract  by  which  a  liorse  is  let  on  the  Loid's  Day  is 
void,  and  a  court  of  law  will  not  enforce  it  nor  give  com- 
pensation or  damages  for  breach  of  it.  Hut  il  the  [mmsou 
hiring  the  horse,  having  c()m|»lete<l  the  distance  agi«'(M| 
ujion,  undertakes  a  new  and  independent  journey,  not  witliiu 
the  terms  of  the  illegal  contract,  the  illegality  of  tin-  (oa- 
tract  furnishes  no  defense  for  his  subsequent  acts.  Trovn- 
nuiy  be  maintained  for  the  wrongful  conversion  of  tin' 
horse,  unless  the  owner  to  establish  liis  claim  in\(tkcs  ai<l 
from  the  unlawful  agreement. 

A  let  a  horse  to  H  on  the  Lord's  Day  to  go  llircc  milfs; 
B  went  with  him  six  miles  further,  and  overdrove  liiiii  si» 
that  he  died.  Jt  was  held  that  an  action  of  troxci-  lay  foi- 
danuiges.     Mcu'ton  v  (iloster,  4(>  Me.  illMt. 

If  a  contract  for  the  hire  of  a  horse  was  made  on  Sunday, 
and  the  horse  was  injured  by  the  negligence  of  the  hirer,  an 
action  may  be  maintained  agiiinst  him  by  the  owner,  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  the  hiring  was  on  Sunday.  Har 
rison  v  Marshall.  4  E.  D.  Smith   (N.  Y.)  271. 

Letting  a  horse  on  Sunday  is  a  nmtter  of  business,  and 
traveling  with  a  hoise  foi-  pleasure  on  Sunday  \i()Iates  the 
statute.  If  the  horse  is  injured  by  immoderate  driving  in 
consequence  of  which  he  dies,  the  owner  cannot  i-ecovei-  even 
if  the  injury  occniMcd  while  tlic  liircr  was  diiving  beyond 
the  ])lace  luimed  in  llie  conliact.  (licgg  v  NN'yiiian.  I  Cnsli. 
(Mass.)  :V2:\. 

A  contract  for  the  j)urchase  of  bind  was  iniliahMl.  Imt  mtl 
completed,  on  Sunday.  A  payment  on  the  contract  was 
made  on  a  subsecinent  week  day,  but  there  was  a  failure 
of  consideration  resulting  fiom  the  refnsal  <»f  one  partner  t<» 
confirm  the  contract  nmde  with  his  cojtartner.  The  jjlaintilf 
who  made  the  payment  on  the  contract  was  held  entitled  to 
recover  it  back,  and  the  Sunday  negot  iai  inns  were  liebl  no 
bar  to  the  action.     Menill  v  Dttwiis,  II    N.  11.  Tl'. 

A  contract  for  (he  perlormance  of  work  on  a  railroatl  was 


756  THE  CIVIL  LAW  AND  Til  10  (  III  IJCH 

iuitiated  hy  iicgotiation.s  l)('j;iiii  l)iit  noi  coikIikIciI  oh  Sun- 
day. The  work  was  performod  and  rocoverv'  on  the  contract 
was  sustained  on  the  gronnd  that  the  Sunday  negotiations 
constituted  a  mere  proposition,  not  result inj;  in  a  eomphited 
contract  on  that  day.    Stackpole  v  Synionds,  2'1  N.  H.  229. 

In  an  action  in  Vermont  based  on  a  fraud  in  the  exchange 
of  horses  which  occurred  in  New  IIanii)sliiie  on  Sunday  it 
was  held  that  the  contract,  if  made  in  another  State,  was 
not  in  violation  of  the  law  of  Vermont.  A  contract  made  on 
Sunday  is  not  tinged  with  any  j^eneral  illegality;  it  is 
illegal  only  as  to  the  time  in  which  it  is  entered  into.  Adams 
V  Gay,  19  Vt.  358. 

A  contract  made  on  Sunday  for  the  performance  of  labor, 
which  was  afterward  performed  on  week  days,  rendered  the 
employer  liable  for  the  amount  agreed  ui)on.  Receiving  the 
labor  was  in  etfect  a  ratification  of  the  contract,  and  he  was 
bound  to  pay  for  it.    Meriwether  v  Smith,  44  Ga.  541. 

When  the  time  for  the  performance  of  a  contract  falls  on 
Sunday  the  compliance  on  the  following  day  will  be  a  suffi- 
cient performance.  Stryker  v  Vanderbilt,  27  N.  J.  Law  Rep. 
68. 

Where  the  last  day  for  performing  a  contract  falls  upon 
Sunday  tlie  party  has  the  following  Monday  on  which  to 
perform.  Otherwise,  as  to  contracts  where  days  of  grace 
are  allowed,  the  last  of  whic-h  falls  on  Sunday,  if  Sunday  be 
the  next  day  after  presentment  of  a  protest  of  a  bill  or  note, 
the  notice  of  protest  will  be  in  time  if  sent  on  the  following 
Monday.    Anonymous,  2  Hi  11  (N.  Y.)  375. 

A  contract  entered  into  in  New  York  by  parties  resident 
there,  and  to  be  j)erformed  there,  is  to  be  governed  by  the 
laws  of  that  State.  According  to  the  judicial  decisions 
in  New  York,  it  is  settled  that  when  the  day  of  the  perform- 
ance of  a  contract,  upon  whieh  days  of  grace  are  not  allowed, 
falls  on  Sunday,  that  day  is  not  to  be  eoiuited.  and  the  con- 
tract may  be  performed  on  the  next  Monday.  Stebbias  v 
Leowolf,  3  Cush.  (Mass.)  137. 

An  executed  contract  made  on  Sundav  is  not  void.    There- 


SUNDAY  7.-T 

fore  a  sale  of  personal  piopeitv  on  a  week  day  for  whicli  a 
note  was  given  on  Sunday,  possession  ot  the  properly  havinii 
been  transferred  to  tlie  buyer  and  llie  note  jiaid,  the  trans- 
action was  held  valid,  notwithstanding-  a  part  of  it  occurred 
on  Sunday.    Chestnut  v  narl)augli,  78  I'a.  St.  47:5. 

A  contract  for  the  sale  of  proi»erty  initiated  on  a  week 
day,  but  not  completed  until  Sunday,  must  be  i-ey;arded  as  a 
Sunday  contract  and  therefore  void.  Smith  v  Foster,  41 
N.  H.  215. 

It  was  held  in  New  York  that  any  business  not  judicial 
can  be  lawfully  done  on  Sunday,  except  so  far  as  it  is  pro- 
hibited by  statute.  The  exposure  of  certain  articles  to 
sale  is  prohibited.  The  prohibition  is  evidently  directe<l 
against  the  public  exposure  of  commodities  to  sale  in  the 
street,  or  in  stores,  shops,  warehouses  or  nuirket  jdaces.  It 
has  no  reference  to  mere  private  contracts,  which  are  made 
without  violating  or  tending  to  produce  a  violation  of  the 
public  order  and  solemnity  of  the  day.  Every  man  is  per- 
mitted, in  those  respects,  to  regulate  his  conduct  by  the  dic- 
tates of  his  own  conscience.  In  this  case  the  contract  was 
made  on  Sunday  in  Canada,  but  it  related  to  jirojterly  in  this 
State,  which  was  transferred  by  one  jiariner  to  another  in 
settlement  of  partnership  affairs.  The  transfer  was  sus- 
tained.   Boynton  v  Page,  I.''.  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  425. 

An  agreement  was  ma<le  on  Sunday  for  the  extension  of  a 
debt  on  condition  that  a  certain  amount  should  be  jiaid  at  a 
si)ecified  date,  and  the  amount  was  afterward  jiaid  accord 
ingly.  The  ccmlract  was  not  void,  although  made  on  Sun- 
day. It  was  a  lU'W  contract  and  binding  on  both  parties. 
The  Sunday  law  should  not  be  used  as  a  means  to  jieriu  i  i;ile 
a  fraud.     Uhler  v  Ai.jdegate,  2(;  Pa.  St.  140. 

Where  a  contract  was  to  be  performed  on  demand,  a 
denuind  for  the  j)erformame  on  Sunday  need  not  be  com- 
plied with.  A  party  is  not  bound  to  perform  a  contract  on 
that  day.     Delamater  v  Miller,  1  Cow.  (N.  Y.i   7.">. 

A  contract  made  on  Sunday  is  not  void  at  c(»mmon  law. 
An  executory  contract  made  on  Sunday  cannot  be  enfone*!, 


758  Till']  ('1\IL  LAW  AND  THi:  ('HrK<H 

but  iili  cxcculcd  colli  I'jicI  »oii.siiiiiiii;i1<m|  on  SuihIjiv,  wliirli 
does  not  need  tlu'  :ii(l  of  llic  coiiil  lo  (Miforcc  it,  will  not  l»c 
jivoidcd  on  tli;it  }ii"oiiiMl.  A  deed  |»r-('vionsly  sij^ncd  aii<l  ac- 
kiiowlcdged,  but  delivered  on  Siindny.  will  piiss  tln^  title  to 
the  grantee.    Shunian  v  Shuniaii,  L*7  l*a.  St.  DO. 

If  an  offer  made  on  Sunday  be  a((<'|)ted  on  Monday,  the 
contract  is  not  invalid  under  the  New  Hampshire  public 
statutes,  chap.  271,  sec.  8.  McDonald  v  Fernald,  68  N.  H. 
171. 

Conversion,  Driving  Horse  Beyond  Contract  Limit.  A  person 
who  hires  a  horse  of  its  owner  to  drive  to  a  particular  place, 
and  drives  it  to  another  ])lace.  is  liable  in  tort  for  the  con- 
version of  the  horse,  although  the  contract  of  hiring  was 
made  on  the  Lord's  Day,  and,  as  both  parties  knew,  for  pleas- 
ure only,  and  therefore,  illegal  and  void.  Hall  v  Corcoran, 
107  Mass.  251. 

Courts.  In  Story  v  Elliot,  8  Cow.  (N.  Y.  I  27,  it  is  held  that 
by  the  common  law  all  judicial  proceedings  are  prohibited 
on  Sunday.  Making  an  award  is  a  judicial  ])roceeding,  and 
is  invalid  if  made  on  that  day. 

Courts,  Ancient  Hebrew  Custom.  Sir  Henry  Spelman 
quotes  several  Hebrew  writers  as  authoritj'  for  the  statement 
that  Jewish  courts  frcHjuently  sat  on  the  Sabbath,  and  that 
it  was  customary  for  the  Sanhedrin  to  hohl  sessions  each 
week  day  "from  morning  to  night  in  the  dates  of  the  city; 
and  on  the  Sabbath,  and  on  festivals  upon  the  walls.  So  the 
whole  year  then  seemed  a  continual  term,  no  day  exem])te<l." 
Swann  v  Broome,  '^>  Bur.  (Eng.)  1507;  see  also  Story  v 
Elliot,  8  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  27,  where  the  court  quotes  from  Lord 
Mansfield's  o|>inion. 

Courts,  Charging  Jury.  The  Tennessee  Code  of  1858  recog- 
nized the  conmion  law  rule  prohibiting  holding  courts  on 
Sunday;  accordingly,  it  was  held  that  unless  authorized  by 
statute  the  judge  i>residing  on  a  criminal  trial  could  not 
lawfully  charge  the  jury  on  Sunday.  Charging  a  jury  was 
said  to  be  a  high  ju«licial  function.  ^loss  v  State.  17;>  S.  W. 
(Tenn.i   S."!». 


SUNDAY  T.V.t 

Courts,  Early  Christian  Custom.     J.oid  Man-lidd,  in  Swann 

V  Broome,  3  Bur.  (Eiig. )  151)7,  coiisideriii};  a  (jiit'stutii  involv- 
ing the  vali<lity  of  judicial  pi-oct'cdings  on  Sunday,  jiixcs  an 
iuterestiug  history  of  ancient  usage,  quotinj^  Ironi  Sir  Henry 
Spelmau's  Original  of  Terms  the  statement  that  "tiie  Ciiris- 
tians  at  first  used  all  days  alike  for  hearinji  <»f  causes,  not 
sparing  (as  it  seenieth)  the  Sunday  itself.''  Lord  Manstield 
says  the  Christians  had  two  reasons  for  this  couise:  "One 
was,  in  oijpositiou  to  the  heathens,  who  were  s»i]»ers(itious 
about  the  observation  of  the  daj's  and  times,  conceiving  some 
to  be  ominous  and  unlucky,  and  others  to  be  lucky,  and 
therefore  the  Christians  laid  aside  all  observance  of  days. 
A  second  reason  they  also  had,  which  was,  by  keeping  their 
own  courts  always  open,  to  prevent  Christian  suitors  from 
resorting  to  the  heathen  courts."  BegiuTiing  with  the  yeai" 
517  several  canons  were  made  by  church  councils  restricting 
and  finally  prohibiting  judicial  proceedings  on  Sunday. 
These  canons  were  confirmed  by  William  the  Con(pieror  and 
Henry  11,  and  so  became  a  part  of  the  conunon  law  of  Kng 
land. 

Courts,  New  York  City  Magistrates.    In  Peo]ile  ex  rel  Burke 

V  Fox,  205  N.  Y.  41)0,  it  was  held  that  New  York  city  nuigis- 
trates  may  exercise  jurisdiction  on  Sunday  where  it  is  neces- 
sary to  preserve  the  peace,  and,  accordingly,  a  summary  con- 
viction of  disorderly  conduct  on  that  day  was  sustained; 
citing  sec.  5  of  the  Judiciary  Law;  Cons.  Laws,  chaj).  .".0 
and  the  Inferior  Criminal  Courts  Act  of  lOlO.  chap.  <i.")0, 
sec.  71,  conferring  jurisdiction  on  city  nmgist rates  to  sit  on 
Sunday. 

Deed.  A  deed  made  on  Sunday  is  void.  A  contract  not 
otherwise  invalid,  but  void  only  because  made  on  Sunday, 
constitutes  an  exception  to  the  general  rule  that  void  con- 
tracts are  not  susceptible  of  ratitication.  A  deed  takes  elfect 
from  the  time  of  its  delivery,  and  thoiigh  signed  and  ac- 
knowledged on  Sunday,  if  delivered  on  another  day.  it  is  a 
valid  deed,  whatever  may  be  the  elVect  njxui  the  acknowledg- 
ment.    \Yhere  a  {\vri\  is  executed  on  Sunday,  but  by  the  i»ro- 


7(50  TIIIO  ('l\IL   LAW  AM)  '1111;  CliriKII 

cureiiu'iil  of  I  lie  grantor  is  (hilcd  upon  the  preceding  «iiiy,  In; 
cannot  assert  the  invjilidity  of  the  deed  against  a  subsequent 
ItoiKi  fide  |uir(li;is('r.    Love  v  Wells,  2")  Ind.  HOo. 

Defined,  hi  MmIiic  it  was  held  that  the  Sabbath,  as  estab- 
lished by  statute,  conniKMict's  at  midniglit  preceding  and  ends 
at  sunset  on  the  Loi'd's  Day.  Traveling  after  simset  on  that 
<lay  is  not  illegal.  Nor  was  it  any  defense  in  an  action  for 
damages  against  a  town,  for  injuries  to  plaintiff's  horse  by 
a  defect  in  one  of  their  highways  re<-eived  after  snn.set  on 
the  Sabbath  d;iy,  that  the  i»laintiff  let  his  horse  on  Sunday, 
and  at  tlie  time  of  the  injury  the  horse  was  being  used  nndei- 
such  contract.    Bryant  v  Biddeford,  ?>i)  Me.  193. 

Under  the  Texas  law  Sunday  includes  the  twenty-four 
hours  from  midnight  to  midnight.  The  giving  of  two  or 
more  theatrical  performances  in  the  same  place  on  the  same 
day  does  not  constitute  separate  offenses.  Muckenfuss  v 
State,  55  Tex.  Cr.  Re.  229. 

Under  the  New  nanii)shire  statute  of  1709  the  Lord's 
Day  includes  twenty-four  hours  from  midnight  to  midnight. 
The  service  of  civil  process  on  that  day  is  illegal.  Shaw  v 
Dodge.  5  N.  H.  4(52. 

It  was  held  in  Connecticut,  Fox  v  Abel,  2  Conn.  541,  that 
the  term  "Lord's  Day"  included  the  solar  day  only,  the  time 
between  sunrise  and  sunset,  and  that  the  service  of  a  body 
execution  after  midnight  on  Sunday,  and  before  sunrise  was 
not  a  violation  of  the  statute  against  tlie  service  of  civil  pro- 
cess on  the  Lord's  Day. 

Demurrage.  In  view  of  tiie  statute  j)rohibiting  servile 
labor  on  Sundays,  a  contract  to  pay  demurrage  will,  in  the 
absence  of  any  proof  to  the  contrary,  be  deemed  to  intend  to 
mean  demurrage  for  working  days,  and  to  exclude  Sundays. 
Rigney  v  White,  4  Daly  (N.  Y.  i  400. 

Disorderly  Conduct.  The  Sunday  law  of  1794  is  expressly 
limited  to  worldly  business  and  unlawful  sports  or  diver- 
sions, and  does  not  apply  to  drunkenness,  swearing,  and 
disorderly  conduct.  Noftsker  v  Commonwealth,  22  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  559. 


SUN1>AV  Ttil 

Employer  and  Employee.  Tlie  iJiohildtion  coiilaiucW  in  iIk- 
Virginia  Sunday  law  was  lichl  to  appl.v  Ixtili  to  an  i-ni 
ployer  and  to  an  employee.  I'nckett  v  <  "oiiiinonwcalili.  lOT 
Va.  844. 

Execution.  The  sheriff  received  an  execution  (tn  a  week- 
day with  instructions  to  hold  it  until  further  directions.  On 
Sunday  the  plaintiff  in  the  execution  directed  Ihe  sheriff'  to 
proceed.  On  Monday',  when  about  to  levy  under  this  execu- 
tion, he  received  another  execution.  It  was  held  that  the 
latter  execution  had  priority'.  The  direction  to  the  sheriff 
given  on  Sunday  was  a  nullity.  Stern's  Ai)|)eal,  G4  Pa.  St. 
447. 

Judgment  was  entered  in  the  forenoon  on  Saturday.  An 
execution  was  issued  Sunday  night  immediately  aftei-  mid 
night.  The  statute  prohibited  the  issue  of  an  execution  until 
the  lapse  of  twenty-four  hours  after  the  entry  of  the  judg- 
ment. It  was  held  that  Sunday  must  be  excluded  from  the 
computation  of  time,  that  the  execution  was  prematurely 
issued,  and  that  a  levy  under  it  was  void.  Penniman  v  (\de; 
8  Mete.  (Mass.)  49G. 

Where  the  lien  of  an  attachment  continue<l  thirty  days 
after  the  rendition  of  the  judgment,  and  the  last  day  fell  o\\ 
Sunday,  the  time  was  not  thereby  extended.  Sunday  could 
not  be  excluded  from  the  computation,  and  an  execution 
issued  on  that  day  was  too  late  and  invalid.  Alderman  v 
Phelps,  15  Mass.  225. 

Food.  A  proprietor  of  an  ice  cream  saloon  and  a  cake  ami 
bread  bakery  sold  ice  cream,  cake  and  bread  to  i)ersons  who 
either  ate  them  on  the  premises  or  carried  them  away.  Such 
sales  were  held  not  to  be  a  violation  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Sunday  law  of  1794.  Commonwealth  v  Kcitlian.  1  Monng. 
Pa.  Sup.  Ct.  Oas.  .'HIS. 

Foreclosure  Sale.  In  Sayles  v  Smith,  12  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  57, 
the  court  sustained  the  regularity  of  a  notice  of  sale  in  fore- 
closure by  advertisement  which  provided  for  a  sale  on  Sun- 
day, saying  that  such  sale  on  Sunday  was  not  prohibited  by 
law;  but  in  this  case  the  sale  was  ]tostpone<l  before  the  Snn- 


7<;ii        Tuv:  ('i\iL  LAW  ANi>  Tin:  criUROH 

day  fixed  for  the  .sale,  and  was  liad  on  tlic  followiii*;  day, 
Monday, 

Games.  Under  llie  Sunday  law  of  Mississi|)y)i  the  term 
''ijaines"  means  such  sports  and  contests  as  are  publicly 
exhibited,  and  not  ])rivate  diverHions,  and  therefore,  an 
indictment  alle<;in<i  that  the  defendaiit  "did  unlawfully  play 
at  cards  and  dice  on  Sunday"  charged  no  olfense.  Kucker  v 
State,  G7  Miss.  .^28. 

Gaming,  Dice.  The  Texas  statute  a«(ainst  jijandng  for 
money  in  a  city  on  Sunday  was  held  to  include  gaming  with 
dice  prohibited  by  a  subsequent  statute.  Borders  v  State, 
(K;  S.  W.  (Texas)  1102. 

Habeas  Corpus.  A  writ  of  habeas  corpus  may  be  executed 
on  Sunday.    Kice  v  Commonwealth,  3  Bush  (Ky.)  14. 

Ice  Cream.  The  sale  of  ice  cream  on  Sunday  by  a  baker 
who  conducts  a  refreshment  room  in  connection  with  the 
bakery  but  who  does  not  furnish  ordinary  public  entertain- 
ment, is  a  w'orldly  employment  i)rohibited  by  the  Pennsyl- 
vania act  of  1704.    Commonwealth  v  Burry,  5  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  481. 

Immoderate  Driving.  An  action  will  not  lie  to  recover 
damages  arising  from  the  immoderate  driving  of  a  hor.se 
during  a  pleasure  drive  on  the  Lord's  Day  for  which  he  was 
hired.    Parker  v  Latuer,  GO  Me.  528. 

In  Way  v  Foster,  1  Allen  (Mass.)  408,  it  was  held  that 
no  action  lies  for  an  injury  to  a  horse  from  immoderate  driv- 
ing, if  he  had  been  intrusted  by  the  owner  to  the  defendant 
to  be  driven  in  violation  of  the  statute  for  the  observance 
of  the  Lord's  Day. 

Injuries,  Action  for  Damages.  It  was  held  in  New  Hamp- 
shire that  it  was  a  good  defense  to  an  action  brought  in  that 
State  for  injuries  sustained  in  the  State  of  Maine  while 
traveling  for  pleasure  ou  the  Lord's  Day  that  no  recovery 
could  be  had  under  the  laws  of  that  State.  Beachara  v 
r»ortsmouth  Bridge,  G8  N.  H.  382. 

Insurance.  Where  a  life  insurance  policy  required  the 
payment  of  a  premium  within  thirty  days  after  notice,  and 
the  time  expired  on  Sunday,  it  was  held  that  a  payment,  or 


SUNDAY  Hy.i 

tender,  on  the  next  day  was  in  lime,  and  tlic  policv  was  con- 
tinued in  force.  Campbell  v  International  Life  Assurance 
Society,  London,  4  Bosw.  (N.  Y.)  2f)S. 

Intoxicating-  Liquors.  If  the  prohibition  inclndcs  selling 
liquor  on  Sunday,  and  also  exposing;  f(»r  sale  on  Snnday,  on 
proof  of  sale  only  the  defendant  cannot  also  be  convicted  of 
exposing  for  sale  as  a  i)art  of  the  same  transaction.  He  is 
not  liable  to  two  penalties.  Tlie  act  of  selling  necessarily 
includes  the  act  of  exposing  for  sale.  Biooklyn  v  Toynbee. 
31  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  282. 

A  hotel  keeper  who  was  authori/AMl  to  sell  litpior  to  be 
drunk  on  the  premises,  except  on  Sunday,  could  not  avoid 
the  penalty  of  the  statute  against  Sunday  sale  by  i-ecpiiring 
the  purchasers  to  first  eat  a  cold  luncli  placed  on  the  table 
at  which  the  liquors  are  served.  Commonwealth  v  I  lagan, 
140  Mass.  289. 

Keeping  open  on  Sunday  a  place  for  the  illegal  sale  of 
intoxicating  liquors  was  held  to  constitute  an  offense  against 
the  Massachusetts  Sunday  law.  Commonwealth  v  Tiickey, 
13  Allen  (Mass.)  559. 

Where  a  sale  is  made  on  Saturday  on  an  agreement  that 
the  saloon  keeper  should  keep  the  beer  on  ice,  and  hand  it  to 
the  customer  on  Sunday  through  a  broken  glass  in  a  door, 
was  held  to  be  a  violation  of  the  statute  against  selling 
liquor  on  Sunday.    Wallis  v  State,  78  S.  W.  (Texas)  231. 

Proof  of  intent  is  necessary  on  a  charge  against  a  licensed 
tavern  keei)er  for  .selling  liquor  on  Sunday.  Such  intent 
cannot  be  presumed  from  the  fact  that  the  sale  is  by  a  bar- 
tender. The  question  is  for  the  jui-y.  reoi)le  v  Utter,  44 
Barb.   (N.  Y.)  170. 

Jews.  Jews  are  bound  to  observe  the  civil  regulations 
made  for  the  keeping  of  the  Christian  Sabbath.  Society  for 
the  Visitation  of  the  Sick  v  (^)mnionwealth,  ~>'2  I'a.  125. 

Persons  professing  the  .Jewish  religion,  and  others  who 
keep  the  seventh  day  as  Sabbath,  are  subject  to  the  penalties 
imposed  for  violation  of  the  Sunday  law  of  1794.  Common- 
wealth V  Wolf,  3  Ser.  &  K.  (Pa.)  48. 


7«;i         Tin;  cix  il  law  and  iiii;  cm  iirii 

Justices,  Extra  Compensation.  A  special  justice  of  the  city 
(»r  New  York,  receiving  an  aiiinial  salary  for  his  services  in 
lliat  capacity,  caniiol  re-cover  extra  coiniiensation  for  serv- 
ices jxM'fornied  on  Suiulay.  I'alnier  v  Mayor,  N.  Y.,  2  Sandf. 
(X.  Y.)  'MS. 

Laborer,  Hiring.  It  was  lield  in  Kex  v  Wliitna.sh,  ]  Man. 
cS:  J{y.  (lOng. )  45-,  tliat  a  contract  for  hiring  a  .servant  for  a 
jear,  made  between  a  farmer  and  a  laborer  on  a  Sunday  was 
not  within  the  prohibition  in  21)  Car.  2,  chap.  7,  see.  1. 

Lease.  A  written  lease  was  executed  on  Sunday,  and  the 
lessee  entered  into  possession  that  day.  The  lease  was  abso- 
lutely void.  Subso(iuent  ]»ossession  of  the  jjroperty  and  the 
l)ayineut  of  rent  by  the  tenant  created  a  tenancy',  the  terms 
of  which  depended  on  some  contract  aside  from  the  written 
lease,  which  could  not  be  resorted  to  for  the  purpo.se  of 
ascertaining  the  terms  of  the  contract.  Vinz  v  Beatty,  61 
Wis.  645. 

An  agreement  for  rent  of  land  made  on  Sunday  is  void; 
but  if  the  lessee  occupies  the  premises  during  the  term 
stated  in  the  agreement,  such  agreement,  with  other  facts 
and  circumstances,  may  be  shown  for  the  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing the  tenant's  liabilit}'  for  rent.  Kainey  v  Capps,  22 
Ala.  288. 

A  lease  executed  on  Sunday  is  void,  and  subsequent  occu- 
pation of  premises  will  not  be  deemed  a  ratification  of  it,  but 
some  new  promise  or  condition  in  respect  thereto  is  neces- 
sary. Parol  evidence  that  it  was  not  executed  on  the  day 
it  bore  date  is  incompetent.    Mcintosh  v  Lee,  57  la.  356. 

A  guaranty  for  the  fulfillment  of  a  lease  executed  and 
delivered  on  the  Lord's  Day  between  sunrise  and  sunset  is 
void  under  Revised  Statutes  chap.  50,  although  the  lea.se 
itself  be  not  executed  until  a  week  day  following.  Merriam 
V  Stearns,  10  Cush.  Olass.)  257. 

Legal  Proceedings.  Where  an  act  is  required  by  statute  to 
be  done  in  a  given  number  of  days  less  than  a  week  an  inter- 
vening Sunday  may  be  excluded  in  the  com})ntation  of  the 
time.     Where  the  time  fixed  bv  statute  for  doing  an  act 


SUNDAY  T(;r, 

exceeds  a  week,  and  the  last  day  falls  on  Suuday.  the  act 
uiust  be  done  on  the  preceding  Saturday.  AnoiiyuMnis.  i' 
Hill's  Rep.  375. 

Sunday  is  not  to  be  reckoned  one  of  liie  three  days  for 
which  an  officer  may  adjourn  the  sale  of  an  e(|irny  of  redcin]) 
tion  taken  on  execution.    Thayer  v  Felt,  4  I'ick.  (Mass.)  ;i51. 

In  Missouri  it  was  held  that  where  the  last  day  for  lilinj; 
a  claim  against  a  decedent's  estate  fell  on  Sunday,  the  diiini 
might  be  filed  on  Monday.    Keys  v  Keys'  Instate,  217  Mo.  4S. 

Under  a  statute  which  pi'ovided  that  when  notice  of  desire 
to  take  the  poor  debtor's  oath  is  served  by  leaving,  a  coity  at 
the  place  of  abode  of  the  creditor,  not  less  than  twenty-four 
hours  shall  be  allowed  before  the  tune  aitpoinled  for  the 
examination.  Sunday  must  be  excluded  in  the  computa- 
tion of  time.    Cunningham  v  Mahan,  112  Mass.  58. 

In  an  action  commenced  on  Sunday  the  defendant  ap- 
peared, answered,  tried  the  cause,  and  made  a  motion  for 
a  new  trial  without  any  objection  as  to  the  irregular  com- 
mencement  of  the  action.  On  appeal  the  defeinlant  for  the 
first  time  raised  the  Sunday  objection,  but  it  was  held  to 
be  too  late.    Venable  v  Ebenezer  Bapt.  (Mi.,  25  Kan.  177. 

Service  on  a  Sunday  of  a  notice  and  alHdavits  or  other 
pa])ers,  which  are  to  be  the  foundation  of  a  motion  un-  a 
rule,  is  irregulai-  and  void.  Field  v  TarU,  20  Johns.  (  X.  Y.) 
140. 

A  declaration  in  trespass  may  be  delivered  on  Sunday. 
Hargrave&  Taylor  (Hill.  \:\  W.  Ill  )  Fort.  (Fng. )  :{75.  See 
also  White  and  Martin,  (Mich.  S  W.  Ill  i  Fort.  (  lOng.  i  ,'575. 

Legislative  Powers.  A  statute  inohihiling  coniiiKMi  hihor 
on  Sunday  is  a  mere  municipal  or  police  regnlation,  whose 
validity  is  neither  strengthened  or  wcakeiuMl  I»y  the  fact  that 
the  day  of  rest  it  enjoins  is  tlie  Sal»l)alh  day.  The  Ix'gisla- 
ture  has  ]»owei'  to  rccjnii'e  cessation  of  lal)oi*  at  stated  inter- 
vals, and  to  name  the  day  of  rest.  Bloom  v  Kichards,  2 
Ohio  St.  387. 

As  to  the  j)ower  of  the  Legislature  to  protect  Sunday  from 
desecration,  see  Xeuendorll  v  Duryea.  (»!>  N.  V.  557;  l'e(»iile 


7(1(1  TIM-:  ('I\  II.   LAW    AM)  Till:  CHrKCII 

V  l)iiiir«»i<K  2(17  X.  V.  17,  I'd;  !'(•(. pIc  V  Moses,  1  Id  N.  ^'.  215; 
also  Liii(U'iiiiinll('i- V  IN'opU',  ;'.;>  H;irl).  (  \.  \.)  51S. 

*'Tlie  ('sf;il»Iisliiii('iit  jiimI  i-«';inl;ili()ii  of  the  Siilthafli  is 
witliiii  till'  just  j)o\V('i-s  of  llic  en  il  jiovci'imicnl.  With  lis  tin* 
Sabbath  as  a  civil  institution  is  older  than  rhe  jroveriiiiieiit." 
"It  is  a  law  of  our  nature  that  one  day  in  seven  must  be 
obsei-ved  as  a  day  of  relaxation  and  refreshment,  if  not  for 
public  worshij*.  lOxperience  h;is  shown  that  the  ohseiwance 
of  one  day  in  seven  as  a  day  of  rest  is  adniii-ahh;  service  to 
a  state,  considered  merely  as  a  civil  institution."  "The  sta- 
bility of  government,  the  welfare  of  the  subject,  and  the 
interests  of  society,  have  made  it  necessary  that  the  day 
of  rest  observed  bj'  the  i)eople  of  a  nation  should  be  uniform, 
and  that  its  observance  should  be,  to  some  extent,  com- 
pulsory, not  by  way  of  enforcing  the  conscience  of  those 
upon  whom  the  law  operates,  but  by  way  of  protection  to 
those  who  <lesire  and  are  entitled  to  the  day."  "As  a  civil 
institution  the  selection  of  the  daj'  is  at  the  o])tion  of  the 
Legislature;  but  for  a  Christian  people  it  is  highly  fit  and 
proper  that  the  day  observed  should  be  that  wliich  is  re- 
garded as  the  Christian  Sabbath,  and  it  does  not  detract 
from  the  moral  or  legal  sanction  of  the  law  of  the  State  that 
it  conforms  to  the  law  of  God,  as  that  law  is  recognized  by 
the  great  majority  of  the  people.  The  Sabbath  exists  as  a 
day  of  rest  by  the  common  law,  and  without  the  necessity  of 
legislative  action  to  establish  it ;  and  all  that  the  Legisla- 
ture attemi>ts  to  do  in  the  Sabbath  laws  is  to  regulate  its 
observance."  "The  Christian  Sabbath  is,  then,  one  of  the 
civil  institutions  of  the  State,  and  to  which  the  business  and 
duties  of  life  are,  by  the  common  law,  made  to  conform 
and  adapt  themselves."  Lindenniuller  v  People,  33  Barb. 
(K  Y.)  548. 

The  Christian  Sabbath  is  a  civil  institution  older  than  our 
government,  and  respected  as  a  day  of  rest  by  our  constitu- 
tion, and  the  regulation  of  its  observance  as  a  civil  institu- 
tion is  within  the  ])ower  of  the  Legislature  as  much  as  any 
regulations  and  laws  having  for  their  object  the  preserva- 


SUNDAY  7(17 

tion  of  good  morals  and  the  peace  and  good  order  of  society. 
Karwisch  v  Mayor,  etc.,  Atlanta,  44  Ga.  205. 

It  is  no  part  of  the  object  of  tlie  act  to  enforce  the  observ- 
ance of  a  religious  duty.  The  act  does  not,  to  any  extent, 
rest  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  immoral  or  irreligious  to 
labor  ou  the  Sabbath  any  more  than  upon  any  other  day.  It 
simply  prescribes  a  day  of  rest  from  motives  ol  public  policy 
as  a  civil  reguhition.  The  principles  on  which  the  statute 
rests  are  wlioliy  secnhir,  and  they  are  none  the  less  so  be- 
cause they  may  happen  to  concur  witli  tlie  dietates  of  reli- 
gion. The  Legislature  has  no  power  over  things  spiritual 
but  only  over  things  temporal,  nor  any  i»ower  whatever  to 
enforce  religious  duties,  simply  because  lliey  are  religious, 
but  only,  within  the  limits  of  the  constitution,  to  nmintain 
justice  and  ])romote  the  jmblic  welfare.  The  act  rests  on 
j)ublic  policy  alone.  !Mc(Jatrick  v  ^^'ason,  4  Ohio  St.  ")(>(». 
State  Legislatures,  and  Congress  within  the  District  of 
Columbia,  have  ])ower  to  set  apart  Sunday  as  a  day  of  rest 
and  prohibit  labor  thereon.  This  is  not  done  for  the  purpose 
of  enforcing  religious  observance,  but  the  regulation  is  made 
in  the  interest  of  good  order  and  the  welfare  of  soiiety. 
The  Legislature  might  select  any  other  d;iy,  but  by  selecting 
the  Sabbath  day  has  selected  the  day  society  generally 
recognizes  as  a  day  of  rest,  irrespective  of  any  legal  recpiire- 
ment.  Referring  to  the  Maryland  act  of  17l';'..  among  otliei- 
things  prohibiting  blasphemy,  the  court  siiid  it  was  evi- 
dently intended  (o  prevent  the  desecration  of  the  Lonl's 
Day,  and  not  jwimarily  to  enfoi-ce  a  day  of  rest.  It  was 
held  that  this  statute,  an<l  others  of  a  similar  ini])oit, 
enacted  during"  th«'  colonial  jteriod,  hail  become  olisctlete  by 
the  formation  of  a  State  government  and  the  adoption  of 
different  ])olicies  of  legislatitni  which  had  limiicd  the  enact- 
ment of  laws  in  relation  to  Sunday  to  the  cessation  of  c«'r- 
tain  ])rescribed  forms  of  business  on  that  day,  and  whiih 
do  not  assume  to  impose  any  reiigitnis  oltligation  <tn  the 
citizen.      Disti'ict    of  ('(dnnibia    v    lJol»ins(»ii.  .!()   Ap|».    D.   C, 

L's;;. 


TCS  'I'lll':  ('l\IL   LAW   AM)  'I'll  I ;   f'lUKCII 

Levy.  A  l('\_v  on  jiropcrty  is  void.  I'ciicc  v  Hill,  I»  I'ml. 
(Ala.)   151. 

Loan.  A  loan  of  money  inado  on  Uie  Lord'.s  Day  Ih  void. 
Wlu'llier  the  promise  to  repay  be  in  writing,  verbal,  or 
implied,  it  cannot  be  enforced.    Header  v  White,  GO  Me.  90. 

Mail  Carrier.  A  contract  willi  the  postmaster-general  to 
carry  mail  required  it  to  be  carried  between  certain  points 
every  day.  This  was  held  to  justify  carrying  the  mail  on 
Sundaj',  notwithstanding  the  statute  which  jtrohibited  trav- 
eling on  that  day,  except  as  a  work  of  necessity  or  charity. 
Commonwealth  v  Knox,  6  Mass.  7G. 

Marriage.  A  marriage  contract  may  be  performed  on  Sun- 
day,   nayden  v  Mitchell,  lO:}  Ga.  i'M. 

Meat  Market.  Keeping  open  a  butcher  shop  and  selling 
meats  and  vegetables  from  it  on  Sunday  is  a  violation  of 
the  Arkansas  statute  of  1895  imposing  a  tine  on  evei-y  per- 
son who  shall  on  Sunday  keep  open  a  store  or  retail  any 
goods,  wares,  and  merchandise.    I'etty  v  State,  58  Ark.  1. 

Moving  Pictures.  A  moving-picture  show  was  held  to  vio- 
late the  New  Jersey  statute.  Rosenberg  v  Arrowsmith,  89 
A.  (N.  J.)  52-t;  see  also  Kx  parte  Zuccaro,  102  S.  W.  (Tex.) 
844;  also  Lempke  v  State,  171  S.  W.  (Tex.  Crim.  App.)  217; 
see  also  People  ex  rel  Kielej'  v  Lent  (Yonkers)  IGG  A.  D. 
550  (N.  Y.),  but  see  Hauck  v  Ingles,  148  N.  W.  (Minn.) 
100. 

Municipal  Ordinance.  An  ordinance  of  the  town  of  Colum- 
bia, South  Carolina,  prohibiting  the  sale  of  certain  goods  on 
Sunday  was  sustained  in  Town  Council,  Columbia  v  Duke, 
2  Strobh.  L.  (S.  C.)  530.  It  did  not  violate  the  provision 
of  the  State  constitution  relative  to  the  freedom  of  religious 
profession  and  worship,  nor  did  it  violate  the  amendment 
to  the  federal  constitution  on  the  same  subject. 

An  ordinance  adopted  by  the  city  of  Charleston  prohibit- 
ing the  sale  of  certain  goods  on  Sunday  was  held  not  to  be 
a  violation  of  the  x)rovision  of  the  State  constitution  declar- 
ing freedom  of  religious  profession  and  worship.  The  de- 
fendant was  an    Israelite  wlio  kept  the  seventh   day — the 


SUNDAY  Ti;:) 

•lewisb  Sabbath.  The  court  held  tluit  SuiKhiy  was  a  <hiy 
of  rest,  and  that  Sunday  had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  Tlic 
prohibition  containing  the  ordinance  operated  against 
Christians  and  Jews  alike.  City  Council,  Charleston  v  Ben- 
jamin, 2  Strobh.  L.  (S.  C.)  508. 

If  the  general  State  law  c<,>ntaiiis  provisions  relative  to 
Sunday  observance,  and  prohibiting  business  on  Sunday, 
city  authorities  have  no  power  to  enact  an  ordinance  on  i1m' 
same  subject,  but  they  may  enact  ordinances  on  subjects  noi 
embraced  in  the  general  law.  Kothschibl  v  Darien,  GI)  <Ja. 
503. 

Necessity.  A  person  who  rei)airs  a  railroad  track  on  Sun- 
day by  removing  a  broken  rail  and  replacing  it  with  a  new 
one  does  not  violate  the  statute  against  worldly  business  on 
Sunday.  In  this  case  the  broken  rail  was  distovered  on 
Sunday  morning.    Commonwealth  v  Fields.  4  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  i:>4. 

Repairing  on  Sunday  a  belt  in  a  mill  wlii<li  i»roke  (ui 
Saturday  was  held  to  be  a  work  of  lUMcssity,  as  (»tlu'i-wise  the 
mill  could  not  have  been  rini  on  Monday.  State  v  Cidlett, 
79  S.  W.  (Ark.)  7!)1. 

Works  of  necessity  are  not  limited  to  laboi-  for  the  pre- 
servation of  life,  health,  or  j»roperty  from  impending  danger. 
The  necessitj'  may  grow  out  of,  oi-,  indeed,  be  incident  to  tlie 
general  course  of  trade  or  business,  or  even  be  an  exigency 
of  a  particular  trade  or  business,  and  yet  be  within  the 
exception  of  the  act.  McCatrick  v  Wason,  I  (Hii<»  St.  ."ilHl, 
declaring  it  lawful  to  load  a  vessel  (ui  Sunday  if  there  was 
no  other  time  to  do  so,  in  view  of  the  danger  that  navigation 
might  be  closed. 

It  was  held  not  a  work  of  necessity  to  clear  out  a  wheel- 
pit  on  Sunday,  for  the  iiur])ose  of  preventing  the  stoppage 
on  a  week  day  of  mills  wliidi  eni|)l(>yt'd  innny  hands.  A 
l)ersou  who  gratuitously  assisted  the  owner  of  the  wheel  pit 
in  clearing  it  cnit  on  Sunday,  and  during  sueh  service  was 
injured,  was  not  entitled  to  recover  ilamages  for  the  injury, 
for  the  reason  lh;il  his  illegal  act  in  woi-king  on  Sunday  was 
so  inseparably  connected  with  the  catise  of  action  as  to  pre- 


770  TIN':  ('l\  IL   l-AW  ANh  Till;  (111   Kdl 

vcnl    his    iii;iiiil;iiiiiii^    (lie    snil.      .M((Ir;illi    v    Mcruiii,    112 
Miiss.   I<i7. 

All  agi'«l  wonwin,  wliilc  in  ;i  li(»sj)il;il  sntlViiii^  froni  seven; 
injuries,  execiiled  on  Snn(l;iy  :in  assij^nnicnt  of  perMonal 
pioperty  in  tnisl  lor  Ik  r  own  licnefit,  coinforl,  and  siippoi't 
(lurinn;  life,  for  her  funeral  expenses,  and  a  burial  lol,  and 
U}V  the  celebration  of  masses  for  the  benefit  of  her  father, 
brother,  and  herself.  This  was  held  to  be  a  work  of  neces- 
sity or  charity  under  the  statute,  and  was  valid.     Donovan 

V  McCarty,  155  Mass.  543. 

The  Illinois  criminal  code,  which  ju'ohibits  labor  on  Sun- 
day, work  of  necessity  and  charity  excepted,  does  not  mean 
by  the  word  "necessity"  physical  and  absolute  necessity, 
but  a  moral  fitness  or  propriety  of  the  work  done  under  the 
circumstances  of  each  particular  case.  Any  work,  therefore, 
necessary  to  be  done  to  secure  the  i)ublic  safety,  by  the  safe- 
keeping of  a  felon,  or  delivering  him  to  bail,  must  come 
within  the  true  meaning  of  the  excei)tiou  in  the  statute. 
Therefore  it  was  held  that  a  prisoner  might  enter  into  a 
recognizance  on  Sunday  without  violating  the  statute. 
Johnston  v  People,  31  111.  469. 

''By  a  work  of  necessity  is  not  meant  by  the  statute  a  phys- 
ical and  absolute  necessity  but  any  labor  or  work  which  is 
morally  fit  or  proper  to  be  done  on  that  day  under  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  particular  case."  Commonwealth  v 
Fuller,  4  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  429. 

It  was  held  that  when  a  defect  in  a  highway  is  discovered 
on  Sunday  which  may  injure  the  limbs  and  the  lives  of 
travelers,  it  is  not  only  morally  fit  and  proper  that  it  should 
be  immediately  repaired,  but  it  is  the  imperative  duty  of 
the  town  which  is  bound  to  keei)  the  highway  in  repair  to 
cause  it  so  to  be  done,  or  to  adopt  means  to  guard  against 
the  danger  until  it  can  be  done,  and  work  and  labor  for  this 
purpose  is  no  violation  of  the  law  or  of  religious  duty.    Flagg 

V  Millbury,  4  Cush.  (Mass.)  243. 

Kunning  certain  trains  on  Sunday  by  railroad  companies 
is  a  work  of  necessity  under  the  Pennsylvania  act  of  1794, 


SUNDAY  771 

and  it  is  necessary  to  have  such  cars  iiisiKMtcd  and  rcjiairs 
to  keep  the  road  o[)eii  and  the  cars  niovinff.  It  was  hel<l 
that  an  inspector  who  repairs  cars  on  Sunday  was  not  guilty 
of  an  offense  under  this  statute.  Connnonwealth  v  Kobh, 
3  Pa.  Dist.  Ke.  701  ;  14  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  473.  In  Page  v  O'SuUi- 
van,  159  Ky.  703,  it  was  held  that  the  service  performed,  by 
a  prison  guard  was  a  work  of  necessity. 

Newspapers.  In  Commonwealth  v  Teamann,  1  Phila.  (Pa.) 
400,  it  was  held  that  a  charge  of  disorderly  conduct  in  sell- 
ing newspapers  on  Sunday  could  not  be  sustained  without 
evidence  that  the  crying  of  newspapers  on  the  streets  had 
been  committed  in  such  a  disorderly  manner  as  to  constitute 
a  breach  of  the  i)eace. 

A  person  kei)t  ()i)en  his  place  of  business  on  Sunday,  and 
Sunday  papers  of  that  date  were  upon  that  day  sold  therein, 
and  he  received  and  caused  to  be  delivered  to  the  customers 
upon  his  route  as  a  carrier  upon  that  day  the  newspapers 
which  had  that  daj'  been  published.  This  was  held  a  viola- 
tion of  the  I'ennsylvania  Sunday  law  of  1794.  That  carry- 
ing on  any  business  on  Sunday  may  be  j)rofitable  to  the  per- 
sons engaged  in  it,  that  it  may  serve  the  convenience  or 
tastes  or  wishes  of  the  public  generally,  is  not  the  test  which 
the  statute  applies.  Commonwealth  v  Matthews,  i*  I'a.  Dist. 
Re.  13. 

The  publication  of  a  newspaper  on  Sunday  was  held  to  be 
worldly  employment  under  the  Pennsylvania  ad  ot  I7'.il. 
and  a  ])erson  who  was  a  stockholder,  director,  and  general 
business  manager  of  the  newsi)aper  company  was  held  liable 
for  a  violation  of  the  statute.  Comnionwealili  \  Houston, 
3,  Pa.  Dist.  Ke.  OSO,  14  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  :;•».".. 

A  contract  for  the  publication  of  an  athcrHsenieni  in  a 
newspaj)er  to  be  issued  and  sold  on  Sunday  is  \<iid.  .hnl^c 
Allen,  after  quoting  the  slalute  regulaiing  Sunday  ob.serv- 
ance  says:  "The  statute  is  in  harnn)ny  wiili  tlie  religion  of 
the  country  and  the  i-eiigious  sentiment  of  the  public,"  ami 
that  the  statute  should  be  libei-ally  construed  in  respect  to 
the  mischiefs  to  be  remedied.     Smith  v  >Vilco.\,  -4  X.  V.  iloo. 


772  Tin-:  ('I\'IIv   LAW    AND  Till:  (iniKil 

Kolli  V  II:ix,  (IS  Mo.  App.  2.S.'i,  sustained  I  lie  Viilidity  of  u 
notice  tluit  a  coiifrnct  for  sdeef  improvements  wftuld  be  let 
on  a  <j;iven  <lay,  a]llionj;li  llie  liist  insertion  of  sncli  notice 
was  in  a  Snnday  ne\\sj»aper. 

In  Montana  tlx'  conri  snstained  tlie  validity  of  the  publi- 
cation of  a  notice  of  liie  submission  of  a  constitutional 
amendment,  altliouj^h  it  was  publislied  in  the  Sunday  issue 
of  one  paj)er,  there  being  in  that  State  no  statute  prohib- 
itin<;  sucli  a  i)ul)lication.  The  court  said  that  the  common 
law  rule  would  govern  in  such  a  case.  State  ex  rel  Hay  v 
Alderson,  49  Mont.  387,  142  P.  210. 

In  Sentinel  Co.  v  Motor  Wagon  Co.,  144  Wis.  224.  it  was 
held  that  the  publisher  of  a  newspaper  could  not  recover  for 
an  advertisement  published  on  Sunday. 

A  contract  to  distribute  newspapers  on  Sunday  was  held 
void.    Knight  v  Tress  Co.,  227  Pa.  185. 

Object.  The  law  gives  to  the  public  the  right  of  enjoy- 
ing the  Sabbath  as  a  day  of  rest  and  of  religious  exercise, 
free  and  clear  of  all  disturbance  from  merely  unnecessary 
and  unauthorized  worldly  employment.  Where  this  law  is 
contravened  in  such  a  manner  as  to  disturb  that  enjoyment 
by  noise  or  disorder  accompanying  it,  or  incident  to  it,  it 
may  be  treated  as  a  breach  of  the  peace.  Commonwealth  v 
Jeandell,  2  Grant's  Cas.  (Pa.)  50G. 

The  institution  of  the  Sabbath  is  not  only  admirably 
adapted  to  promote  and  establish  religion  among  us,  but  to 
secure  and  ])reserve  our  ]ihysical  as  well  as  moral  health  and 
strength.    Commonwealth  v  Dupuj',  Brightl}-  N.  P.  (Pa.)  44. 

Omnibus.  Driving  an  omnibus  on  Sunday  is  worldly  em- 
ployment, and  within  the  prohibition  of  the  Pennsylvania 
act  of  1794,  The  driver  of  the  omnibus  cannot  defend  by 
showing  that  he  was  under  a  contract  for  monthly  hire,  and 
that  it  included  Sunday.  Johnston  v  Commonwealth.  22 
Pa.  St.  102. 

One  Offense  Only.  A  person  can  commit  but  one  offense 
on  the  same  day,  by  exercising  his  ordinary  calling  on  a 
Sunday,  contrary  to  the  statute  of  29  Car.  2,  C.  7.    And  if 


SUNDAY  7T;J 

a  justice  of  the  peace  proceed  to  convict  iiiiii  iu  more  thau 
one  penalty  for  the  same  day  it  is  an  excess  of  jurisdiction 
for  which  an  action  will  lie  before  the  convictions  arc 
quashed.    Crepps  v  Durden,  2  Cowp,  (Eng.)  040. 

Ordinary  Calling.  The  English  statute  of  20  Charles  II, 
chap.  7,  sec.  1,  enacts  that  "no  tradesman,  artificer,  work- 
man, colorer,  or  other  person  whatever  shall  do  or  exercise 
any  worldly  labor,  business,  or  work  of  their  ordinary  call- 
ings niK)n  the  Lord's  Day."  The  construction  given  to  this 
statute  has  been  that  it  j)rohibits  only  the  prosecution  of  ji 
num's  ordinary  secular  business  upon  the  Lord's  Day.  Tlic 
terms  "of  their  ordinary  callings"  have  been  held  to  qualify 
and  restrict  the  general  phraseology'  which  precedes  them. 
Boynton  v  Page,  13  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  425. 

A  farm  laborer  who  sold  soda  water  and  lemonade  on  one 
Sunday  was  held  not  liable  under  a  statute  prohibiting  a 
person  from  carrying  on  his  ordinary  business  or  calling 
on  Sunday.  Repeated  acts  are  necessary  to  constitute  an 
ordinary  calling  or  business.    Ellis  v  State,  5  Ga.  App.  615. 

Payment  on  Debt.  A  i)ayment  on  Sunday  discharges  the 
debt.    Jameson  v  Carpenter,  G8  N.  H.  G2. 

Physician's  Prescription.  Under  the  Texas  local  option  law 
whisky  is  treated  as  medicine,  and  it  was,  accordingly,  held 
that  a  sale  of  whisky  on  Sunday  by  a  druggist  on  a  physi- 
cian's prescription  was  not  a  violation  of  the  statute  ])ro- 
hibiting  the  sale  of  merdiandise  on  that  day.  Watson  v 
State,  46  Tex.  Cr.  Re.  138. 

Plaintiff's  Violation  of  Law,  When  No  Defense.  A  law 
relating  to  the  Sabbath  dcliiics  a  duty  (d'  the  citizen  to  the 
State,  and  to  the  State  only.  A  party  who  erects  iin  obstruc- 
tion in  a  navigable  sti-eam  and  thereby  occasions  ;in  injury 
to  anothei'  cannot,  in  an  action  for  such  injury,  set  u]>  a 
defense  that  the  plaintiff  was  unlawfully  engaged  in  worldly 
em])loynient  on  Sunday  when  the  injury  occurred.  Mohney 
V  Clark,  2(i  Pa.  342. 

Preserving  Property,  if  properly  i^  exposed  to  imminent 
danger,  it  would  not  be  unhiwlul  lo  pieserve  it  on  Sunday, 


771  Tin-:  ("IN  IL   LAW    A  N  h    I'lli:  (III   K("ll 

:iii(l  reiiiovt'  il  (o  ;i  \>\mr  of  sjilcly.  I';mii:il«'('  v  W'ilks,  I'L' 
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  5.^1),  snst;iiiiiii^'  ;i  ((nitiMct  jn-ovidiiij;  fur 
moving;  lo  ;i  plncc  of  safety  lo<;s  fonniiij^  a  part  of  a  i-all, 
wliicli  had  heeii  broken  uj)  in  a  storm. 

Process.  A  writ  of  inquiiy  to  damages  cannot  be  executed 
on  a  Snnday,  nor  can  damaj^es  be  assesse<l  by  tl»e  jnry  on 
that  day,  even  lliough  the  testim()ny  is  taken  on  the  previous 
day.  Butler  v  Kelsey,  IT)  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  177;  see  also  Lord 
Cornwallis  and  Iloyle  (;>ri(Ii.  0  Geo.  1  i   Fort.  ( TCng. )  ?,7:\. 

Criminal  process  may  be  served  on  Sunday  if  such  service 
is  necessarj'  on  that  day.  With  this  limitation  a  warrant 
issued  umler  a  statute  restricting  the  sale  of  intoxicating 
drinks  might  be  served  on  Sunday  unless  it  could  be  shown 
that  the  service  was  not  necessary.  Keith  v  Tuttle,  28  Me. 
327. 

A  writ  issued  on  Sunday  was  held  void.  Haynes  v  Sledge 
and  Maxy,  11  Ala.  530. 

Promissory  Note.  In  Towle  v  Larrabee,  26  Me.  464,  it  was 
held  that  a  ])roniissory  note  made  on  the  Lord's  Day,  given 
and  received  as  the  consideration  for  articles  purchased 
on  that  day,  is  void. 

A  note  signed  and  delivered  on  Sunday  is,  as  between  the 
parties,  invalid.  It  is  otherwise  if  it  be  only  signed  on 
that  day  and  subsequently  delivered.  The  note  in  this 
instance  was  indorsed  on  Monday.  If  it  was  an  accommoda- 
tion paper  and  indorsed  on  Monday,  it  apparently  then  first 
became  a  binding  contract  and  an  action  could  be  nmin- 
taiued  upon  it.  Bank  of  Cumberland  v  Mayberry.  48  Me. 
198. 

A  i)romissory  note,  though  executed  on  Sunday  is  valid  if 
delivered  on  some  otlier  day.  Hofer  v  Cowan,  McClung  Co.. 
55  Cent.  Law  Journal   (Ct.  App.  Ky.)  21)0. 

A  promissory  note  given  on  Sunday  is  void  as  between 
the  parties  and  a  subsequent  promise  to  pay  it  will  not 
make  it  valid.    Pope  v  Linn,  50  Me.  83. 

A  note  given  on  Snnday  for  a  horse  purchased  on  that 
d;iy   is  void.     O'Ponnell   v  Sweeney.  5  Ala.  467;  see  also 


SUNDAY  775 

Plaisted  v  Palmer,  03  Me.  57(J,  clieck  given  for  purchase 
l)rice. 

A  subsequent  innocent  indorsee  for  value  is  protected 
against  any  detect  in  a  promissory  note  arising  from  tlie 
fact  that  it  was  given  on  Sunday.  State  C'ai)ital  Bank  v 
Thomi)son,  42  N.  H.  ;i«l). 

Under  S  Vic,  Ch.  45,  sec.  2,  a  note  made  on  Sunday  in 
])ayment  of  goods  sold  on  that  day  is  void  as  hetwetn  the 
original  parties,  but  not  as  against  an  indorsee  for  value, 
Jind  witlionl  notice.  Ilouliston  v  I'arsons,  !)  U]>.  Can.  i^.  K. 
(iSl  ;  .see  also  ('rond)ie  v  Overholtzer,  11  Up.  Can.  ,")."». 

The  obligation  to  rej)ay  a  loan  is  not  defeated  by  the  fact 
that  the  note  on  which  it  is  borrowed  was  made  on  Sunday, 
or  that  authority  to  deliver  it  was  given  on  that  day,  so 
long  as  the  lender  knew  nothing  of  these  facts.  Beman  v 
Wessels,  53  Mich.  54!). 

A  promissory  note  executed  upon  Sunday  in  consumma- 
tion of  a  contract  previously  made,  not  being  a  work  of 
necessity  or  charity,  is  void.  But  though  such  note  be 
written  and  signed  on  Sunday,  yet  it  will  not,  on  tliat  ac- 
count, be  void  if  not  delivered  until  .some  other  day.  Love- 
joy  V  Whipple,  18  Vt.  379. 

A  note  made  on  Sunday  is  void  and  a  recovery  cannot  be 
ha<l  thereon.  It  cannot  be  presumed  that  the  note  was  given 
on  a  contract  made  on  Saturday.  If  tliere  was  such  a  con- 
trac-t,  the  action  slionld  be  bronglit  thereon  instead  of  on 
the  note.    Kepncr  v  Kccfcr,  (i  Watts  (Pa.)  231. 

A  note  made  payalilc  in  specific  articles  fell  due  on  a  Sun- 
day. It  was  held  that  a  lender  of  ])erforniance  the  next  day 
was  in  time.     Bai-rclt  v  Allen.  1(»  Ohio  42(5. 

The  holder  of  a  pj-oniissory  note,  bearing  date  on  a  secu- 
lar day  taken  before  matniity.  and  in  good  faith  and  for  a 
valuable  consideration,  may  maintain  an  attion  iheicon, 
altliongh  the  note  was,  in  fact,  made  on  Snnday.  Cranson 
V  (Joss.  107  Mass.  4:'.!>. 

A  i>r(»niiss(»ry  note  given  on  Snnday  ft»r  an  antecedent  debt 
is  valid   and   binding.      Kanlnian   \    llanini,  I'A)  Mo.  'ASl. 


77(1  tin:  CI  \'IL    LAW    A  N  I »    I  1 1 1 ;   (   liriK  IJ 

A  iKtlc  ^i\t'ii  (III  Siiii<l;i\  lor  ;;o()(|s  prcxiitiisly  |Mircha.se<l 
A\;is  licid  iMil  \(»i(|  iiiMirr  tlic  (  m-oij;!;;  net  ol'  ITd'J.  Tlu*  note 
Wiis  iiol  inihU'  ill  (III'  exercise  of  (lie  ordiiwiry  ealliiig  or  hiisi- 
iiess  of  (lie  jiaities.    Sanders  v  .lolmsoii,  LM)  (ia.  OUn. 

Where  a  note  falls  due  on  Sninliiy  a  tender  on  llie  loUow- 
inj;  day  is  j^ood.    Avery  v  Stewart,  2  (Jonn.  (j9. 

In  Maine  the  i>rohihition  against  bnsiness  on  Snnday 
relates  only  to  the  time  between  niidni<iht  an«l  snnset.  A 
promissory  note  was  execnted  on  Sunday  before  sunset.  The 
payee  was  not  j)resent  at  the  execution  of  the  note  but  re- 
ceived it  on  a  subse<iuent  week  day.  The  transaction  was 
not  complete  until  the  delivery  of  the  note,  and  the  note 
was  accordingly  held  valid.  Hilton  v  Houghton,  35  Me. 
143. 

A  horse  was  sold  on  Sunday,  and  the  buyer  on  that  day 
gave  to  the  seller  a  note  for  the  i)rice.  Afterward  the  buyer 
made  two  payments  on  the  note,  retaining  the  horse.  Such 
payments  and  retention  of  the  horse  were  deemed  a  ratifica- 
tion of  the  original  contract,  and  the  seller  was  held  entitled 
to  recover  on  the  note.     Sumner  v  Jones,  24  Vt.  317. 

Negotiations  were  begun  late  Saturday  night  for  the  pur- 
pose of  preventing  the  imprisonment  of  a  person  charged 
with  theft.  The  sister  of  the  i)erson  charged  gave  a  note 
in  settlement  of  the  matter,  but  it  was  not  signed  until  about 
two  o'clock  in  the  morning.  The  court  sustained  an  action 
on  the  note,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  was  made  after 
the  beginning  of  Sunday.  Carpenter  v  Crane,  1  Root 
(Conn.)  1)8. 

The  indorsee  of  a  negotiable  promissory  note,  who  pro- 
cured it  to  be  indorsed  by  the  payee  on  the  Lord's  Day, 
cannot  maintain  an  action  thereon  in  his  own  name  against 
the  maker.    Benson  v  Drake,  55  Me.  555. 

In  New  Hampshire  a  promissory  note  made  on  Sunday 
was  held  to  be  void.    Allen  v  Deming,  14  N.  H.  133. 

A  note  made  on  Sunday  is  not  invalid  at  common  law. 
O'Rourke  v  O'Rourke,  43  Mich.  58. 

A  note  dated  on  Sunday  may  be  a  forgery  where  it  is 


SUNDAY  777 

charged  and  proven  that  it  was,  in  fact,  made  on  a  week  day. 
State  V  Sherwood,  90  la,  550. 

In  Michigan  a  note  made  and  delivered  on  Snn<lay  i^s  void, 
although  payable  in  another  State.  Arbuckle  v  Reanine. 
96  Mich.  243. 

A  business  transaction  prohibited  by  law,  in  this  instance 
the  indorsement  of  a  proniissoi-y  note  on  Sunday,  is  void, 
and  the  contract  cannot  be  enforced.  First  National  Bank, 
B:ir  Harbor  v  Kingsley,  84  Me.  111. 

Railroad  Train.  Kunning  passenger  cars  on  Sunday  is  a 
violation  of  the  law  of  1794.  Commonwealth  v  Jeandell,  2 
Grant's  Cas.  (Pa.)  50G;  see  also  S])arhawk  v  I'nion  Pas- 
senger Railway  Company,  54  Pa.  St.  401. 

An  action  lies  against  a  street  railway  company  to  recover 
diimages  for  injuries  sustained  bj"^  a  person  who  was  riding 
for  pleasure  on  Sunday.  Horton  v  Norwalk  Tramwiiy  Com- 
I)any,  66  Conn.  272. 

A  locomotive  engineer  in  charge  of  a  stock  train  was 
injured  while  running  his  train  on  Sunda3^  It  was  held  that 
there  was  no  evidence  that  the  running  of  the  train  was  a 
work  of  necessity  or  charity;  therefore  thjit  the  engineer 
was  performing  labor  in  violation  of  the  statute,  an<l  he 
was  precluded  from  maintaining  an  action  for  personal 
injuries.    Read  v  Boston  &  Albany  R.  R.  Co.,  140  Mass.  199. 

The  running  of  railroad  passenger  trains  on  Sunday, 
transporting  passengers,  and  baggage,  was  held  to  be  a 
work  of  necessity.  Commonwealth  v  Louisville  &  Nashville 
R.  R.  Co.,  80  Ky.  291. 

Under  the  Georgia  IVnal  Code,  sec.  420,  which  i»rohibits 
Ihe  running  of  a  freight  or  excursion  train  on  Sunday,  it 
was  held  that  only  the  superintendent  of,  transportation  was 
indictable  for  the  violation  of  the  statute,  and  that  a  pro- 
ceeding could  not  be  maintained  against  the  trainmaster 
who  acted  under  the  orders  of  the  su])erin  ten  dent.  Craven 
V  State,  109  Ga.  266. 

Redemption  from  Sheriff's  Sale.  Where  a  redemption  from 
a  sheriff's  sale  was  on  Satnrd;iv  it  was  held  that   the  next 


778  Tin:  ('l\  IL    LAW   AM)  'rili:  (IK   K'CII 

redciiipl  ion.  wliidi  llic  I;iw  r('«|iiir('«|  lo  Itc  iii:i<|c  williiu 
twenty  lour  Iioiirs.  ini};lil  he  inndc  on  Mond.-iy,  Snn<l;iy  not 
bcin}^  a  day  on  wliicli  sncli  an  act  could  he  pci  lornicd. 
ToHor  V  IMcrcc.  120  \.  V.  IMT. 

Religious  Services.  What  is  a  work  of  lUHcs.sify  (»r  clmrity 
is  a  (lucstion  of  law  lor  the  court  and  not  a  (|U('stion  of  fact 
for  tlie  July.  Kclij^ious  soi-viccs  (Mi  Sunday  constitute  a 
charity,  including  Ihe  seinion.  the  niuHic,  and  any  other 
exercises  usually  foi-min^-  a  part  of  the  services,  an<l  j^er- 
sous  who  engage  in  this  service  do  not  violate  the  Sunday 
law.  "It  is  a  matter  of  common  observation  that  religious 
societies  solicit  moneys  for  their  needs  and  take  subscrip- 
tions at  their  regular  meetings  on  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
The  custom  is  from  time  immemorial.  The  regular  Sabbath 
offerings,  as  they  are  called,  are  limited  sometimes  to  gifts 
for  the  poor,  or  for  sacramental  purposes,  or  missions,  but 
quite  as  often  they  embrace  gifts  for  the  general  needs  of 
the  society,  including  the  repairs  of  the  church,  lighting  and 
heating,  the  payment  of  taxes,  and  the  numerous  other  needs 
which  do  not  differ  at  all  from  the  needs  of  ordinary  business 
associations."  "The  support  of  public  worship  is  a  work  of 
charity  within  the  meaning  of  the  statute.''  A  subscription 
on  Sunday  to  raise  money  to  pay  for  a  house  of  worship  is 
valid.    Allen  v  Duffie,  4:5  Mich.  1. 

Rescission  of  Contract.  The  rescission  of  a  contract  re- 
quiring certain  formalities  to  make  the  rescission  effective 
is  as  much  a  matter  of  business  as  that  of  making  the  con- 
tract itself,  and  if  done  on  Sunday  is  illegal  ami  void.  Bene- 
dict v  Bachelder,  24  Mich.  425. 

Sale.  If  the  charges  on  a  party's  own  day  book,  upon 
which  he  relies  as  evidence  of  his  claim,  are  dated  on  the 
Lord's  Day,  he  must  show  that  the  sale  was  not,  in  fact, 
made  on  that  day,  or  he  cannot  recover.  Bustin  v  Rogers, 
11  Cush.  (Mass.)  34G. 

Negotiations  on  Sunday  for  the  sale  of  property  are  in- 
valid, and  pass  no  title  to  the  property.  It  is  settled  hiw  in 
Michigan  that  a  Sunday  contract  is  a  prohibited  transac- 


SUNDAY  779 

tiou,  the  illegality  of  which  foibul.s  it  being  made  a  sale  bj' 
a  mere  delivery  hiter.  The  ileliverj'^  must  be  accompanied 
by  circuiiistaiucs  wiiich  in  thc^jiiselves  .sui»]>ly  the  necessai-y 
elements  of  a  contract,  withont  (lci)cn<ling  upon  the  Sunday 
transaction  for  any  essential.  Aspell  v  Hosbein,  1)8  Mich. 
117. 

A  vendor  of  personal  property,  when  sued  in  this  State 
upon  his  warranty,  cannot  defend  ui)on  the  ground  that  the 
sale  was  made  on  Sunday,  if  the  sale  occurred  in  Louisiana, 
there  being  no  law  in  that  State  prohibiting  the  enforce- 
ment of  Sunday  contracts.    McKee  v  Jones,  (>7  Miss.  405. 

Sale  of  a  horse  invalid.     Knights  v  Brown,  U:',  Me.  r),~)7. 

A  contract  for  the  sah*  of  horses  on  Sunday  is  secular 
labor  or  employment  \\  ithin  the  N'ermont  statute.  Such  a 
contract  cannot  be  enforced,  and  an  action  cannot  be  main- 
tained on  a  warranty  made  on  the  sale  or  exchange  of  horses 
on  that  day.    Lyon  v  Strong,  G  Vt.  219. 

An  action  cannot  be  maintained  for  a  deceit  ])racticed  in 
the  exchange  of  horses  on  the  Lord's  Day.  Kobeson  v 
French,  12  Met.  (Mass.)  24. 

In  Tucker  v  Mowry,  12  Mich.  378,  it  was  held  that  a  con- 
tract of  sale  made  on  Sunday  is  void ;  and  the  vendor  may 
on  a  subsequent  day  tender  back  the  purchase  i>rice,  and 
recover  his  ])roperty  by  replevin  if  it  is  not  returned  on 
demand. 

The  mere  making  of  a  bargain  on  Sunday  Tor  the  sale  ol' 
a  horse  is  not  void  in  New  York  unless  the  horse  was  pub- 
licly exposed  for  sale.  The  sale  as  made  was  not  void  at 
common  law  in  New  Yoric,  nor  did  it  \iolate  any  statute. 
Miller  v  Roessler,  4  E.  1).  Smith  (N.  Y.)  234. 

A  contract  for  the  sale  of  a  hor.se  was  initiated  by  certain 
negotiations  on  Sunday,  but  the  hor.se  was  not  delivered.  n«»r 
the  money  paid  until  the  following  Tuesday.  The  contract 
was  not  void  as  violating  the  Sunday  law.  Hloxsome  v 
Williams,  3  Barn.  &  Cre.  (Kng.)  232. 

In  Ohio  it  was  held  that  a  contract  lor  ihe  sale  of  land 
made   on    Snndav   was   n<)t   invalid    and    did    not    constitute 


780  TIIK  (M\IL   LAW   AND  Till;  <'HI   KCII 

(-oiniiioii  ImImh-  iimicr  (lie  Siiii<l;iy  liiw  ol  is:',l.  lilooiii  v 
Kiclijinls.  2  Ohio  St.  387. 

In  \(nlliiMi]»  V  Foot,  M  Wrixl.  (  N.  Y. )  24S,  it  \v;is  held  that 
an  actiiMi  could  not  Ix'  maintained  in  New  York  based  on 
an  allej^ed  deceit  in  the  sale  of  a  horse  made  in  Connecticut 
on  S\in<lay,  where  sncli  sale  was  void. 

The  private  sale  of  a  span  of  horses  on  Sniiday  is  not" 
void  at  common  law;  nor  is  it  void  niidcr  the  New  ^'ork 
statnte  ])r(»hiltitin»5  the  ex]>osui"e  for  sale  of  goods,  wares, 
and  merchandise  on  Sunday.  Batsford  v  Every,  44  Barh. 
(N.  Y.)   618. 

A  horse  was  sold  privately  on  Sunday  b}^  a  horse  dealer  to 
one  who  knew  the  seller's  calling.  It  was  held  that  such  a 
sale  did  not  violate  the  Sunday  statute  of  North  Carolina, 
and  did  not  j)revent  the  jturchaser  from  nuiintaining  an 
action  for  deceit  on  the  sale  of  a  horse.  Melvin  v  Easley, 
7  Jones  Law  Rep.  (N.  C.)  356. 

A  sale  of  goods  on  a  Sunday,  which  is  not  made  in  the 
exercise  of  the  ordinary  calling  of  the  vendor,  or  his  agent, 
is  not  void  at  common  law  or  by  the  statute  of  29  Car.  11, 
chap.  7.    Drury  v  Defontaiue,  1  Taunt.  (Eng. )  135. 

A  contract  for  the  sale  of  a  horse  on  Sunday  is  void.  The 
seller  of  a  horse  on  Sunday  cannot  recover  the  animal  back 
from  the  i)urchaser,  or  nuiintain  trover  for  its  value,  on  the 
ground  that  the  contract  was  void  and  that  no  title  passed. 
If  the  seller  of  the  horse  on  Sunday  was  made  drunk  by 
the  purchaser  thereof,  for  the  purpose  of  defrauding  him, 
the  parties  were  not  in  pari  delicto  and  the  seller  can  re- 
cover his  horse.    Block  v  McMurray,  56  Miss.  217. 

A  horse  dealer  cannot  maintain  an  action  upon  a  con- 
tract for  the  sale  and  warranty  of  a  horse  made  by  him  upon 
a  Sunday.    Fennell  v  Ridler,  5  Barn.  &  Cres.  (Eng.)  406. 

Salesman,  Services  on  Sunday.  In  Wisconsin  a  traveling 
salesman,  under  a  contract  by  v.l.uh  he  was  to  receive  a 
salary  and  also  his  expenses  not  exceeding  an  average  speci- 
fied amount  for  each  working  day,  was  permitted  to  include 
Sunday  among  the  working  days,  where  he  had  actually 


SUNDAY  781 

traveled  or  rendered  service  ou  that  day.  Orusteiu  v  Yalir 
&  Lange  Drug  Co.,  119  Wis.  429. 

Saloon.  A  saloon  is  open  within  the  contenij)lation  of  3 
How.  Stat.,  sec.  2283  (Michi<;an j,  requiring  saloons  to  be 
kept  closed  during  Sunday,  wliere  a  door  leading  from  the 
saloon  into  a  hallway  is  left  o])en,  and  jteople  are  allowed  to 
enter  the  hallway  which  does  not  connect  with  anj^  room 
other  than  the  saloon.    Peoi)le  v  Schottey,  IIG  Mich.  1. 

Saloon  Closing,  Mandamus.  In  l'eoi)le  v  Bnsso,  141  111.  App. 
218,  it  was  hehl  that  a  peremptory  mandamus  V\'ould  not 
be  granted  on  the  application  of  a  private  citizen  to  comi)el 
the  mayor  of  the  city  to  enforce  Sunday  saloon  closing  laws. 
See  same  rule  as  to  a  police  commissioner  who  had  granted 
saloon  privileges  in  addition  to  those  prescribed  by  statute. 
A  mandamus  was  refused  to  c()ni))el  him  to  enforce  the  law 
or  vacate  the  order  j)romulgated  by  him  Gowan  v  Smith, 
157  Mich.  443. 

Search  Warrant.  A  search  warrant  is  not  a  civil  process, 
and  it  may  be  executed  on  Sunday.  Wright  v  Dressel,  140 
Mass.  147. 

Seaweed.  The  gathering  of  sea^veed  about  ten  o'clock  on 
tlie  evening  of  the  Lord's  Day  on  a  beach  at  a  considerable 
distance  from  any  house  or  public  road  is  not  a  work  of 
necessity  in  the  sense  of  the  Massachusetts  General  Statutes, 
chap.  84,  sec.  1,  alth<mgli  it  will  probably  be  floated  away 
beyond  rcacli  unless  then  gathered.  (^mimonwealth  v 
Sampson.  !I7  M;iss.  407. 

Security  for  Good  Behavior.  Security  for  good  behavior 
cannot  be  recpiired  of  a  jierson  convicted  on  several  occa- 
sions of  a  violation  of  the  law  against  doing  worldly  busi- 
ness on  Sunday.  Commonwealth  v  Foster,  28  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.  400. 

Seventh  Day  Observance.  Persons  who  habitually  observe 
the  seventh  day  as  the  Sabbath  are  nevertheless  amenable 
to  a  statute  i)rohibiting  certain  labor  and  business  on  Sun- 
day.    Specht  V  Commonwealth,  8  Pa.  St.  312. 

Slot  Machine.    The  pi-ovision  of  the  South  Carolina  statute 


782  'nil',   ('IN  11.    LAW    .\M»   'I'lli:   (III    IMIl 

|»i(>liil»il  iii^  siilcs  (»r  :;(»(»(|s  on  Siiii(|;iy  \\;is  held  to  iii(lii(|«* 
in.icliiiics  ;nit(>iii;ilir;illy  vciMliii;^  iiicicaiil  ilc  wiiros.  A 
ciisloiiKM-  jiiil  iiMtiicy  in  llic  slot  mikI  t!i«'  iicicliiiio  automnt- 
icaliy  piodiued  (he  articles  sold,  "(loods  in  these  inachines 
are  exposed  to  sale  as  actually  and  ellec  tually  as  if  the  owner 
or  operator  were  i)resent  sliowin^  the  ^oods  and  deliveriii}^ 
the  same  on  receipt  of  jirice.  The  intent  and  ellect  is  an 
actual  sale  and  deliveiy  of  <;oods  to  every  customer  who  will 
])ay  the  ])rice  as  <lirected  hy  the  seilei-."  Cain  v  Daly,  71 
S.  (\  4S0. 

Social  Club,  Treasurer  Receiving  Money.  The  treasurer  of  a 
social  club  received  on  Sunday  money  lielon<;in<;  1o  the 
club.  Even  if  this  receipt  of  monej'  by  him  on  Sunday  was 
a  violation  of  the  Maryland  statute,  he  could  not  interpose 
such  violation  as  a  defense  in  an  action  by  the  club  to  recover 
the  money.  Haacke  v  Knights  of  Liberty  Social  and  Liter- 
ary Club,  7()  Md.  429. 

Soda  Water.  Sellinj;'  soda  water  as  a  beverage  on  Sunday 
in  connection  with  drugs  is  a  violation  of  the  Tennsylvania 
act  of  1704  prohibiting  worldly  employment  on  Sunday. 
Splane  v  Connnonwealth,  U  Sad.  (Sup.  Ct.  Cases,  Pa.)  201. 

Stagecoach.  In  Sandiman  v  Breach,  7  Barn,  and  Cres.  1)G, 
it  was  held  that  the  statute  (3  Car.  1.  chap.  1,  and  29  Car. 
2,  chap.  7)  did  not  nuike  it  unlawful  for  stage  coaches  to 
travel  on  the  Lord's  Day. 

Statute,  Constitutional.  Sec.  247  of  art.  27  of  the  Code  of 
Maryland,  public  general  laws,  prohibiting  work  on  Sun- 
day, is  not  a  violation  of  the  State  or  federal  constitutions. 
Judefind  v  State,  78  Md.  510. 

The  Texas  act  of  Decend)er  2,  1871,  known  as  the  Sunday 
law,  makes  it  a  misdemeanor  for  any  dealer  in  a  lawful 
business  to  sell  or  barter  (except  drugs  or  medicines)  on 
Sunday,  between  nine  o'clock  a.  m.  and  four  o'clock  i*.  m. 
within  the  limits  of  any  city  or  town,  under  a  penalty  of  not 
less  than  |20  nor  more  than  850.  It  was  held  that  this  en- 
actment was  constitutional,  and  still  in  force,  and  was  not  a 
local  law,  nor  repugnant  to  the  guaranty'  of  equal  rights 


SUNDAY  783 

giveu  by  the  coustitutiou  of  1S7C,  Bohl  v  State,  o  Tex.  Ct. 
App.  (>83. 

The  Kentucky  act  of  iyo:>,  sec.  1303,  prohibiting  keeping 
oi)en  a  barroom  or  .selling  licjuor  thei-ein  on  Snnday,  was  sus- 
tained as  an  exerci.se  of  i)olico  power,  notwitlistanding  the 
])rovision  of  the  constitution  requiring  the  General  As- 
sembly to  pi'ovide  a  law  whereby  the  .sense  of  the  j)eople  of 
any  city,  etc.,  may  be  taken  as  to  whether  or  not  liquors 
shall  be  sold  therein,  or  the  sale  thereof  regulated.  Keep- 
ing a  barroom  open  on  Sunday  and  selling  liquor  on  that  day 
are  distinct  offenses.  Commonwealth  by  Earth  v  McCann, 
12:5  Ky.  247. 

Statute  of  Limitations.  A  part  payment  made  ui)on  Sunday 
will  not  take  a  debt  out  of  the  operation  of  the  Statute  of 
limitations.    riai)p  v  ^ale,  112  Mass.  308. 

Statute,  Unconstitutional.  In  Ex  I'arte  Newman,  9  Cal.  502, 
the  California  act  of  April,  1858,  "for  the  better  observance 
of  the  Sabbath,"  was  held  to  be  a  violation  of  sections  1  and 
4  of  the  State  constitution  relating  to  the  independence  of 
the  citizen  and  religious  toleration.  The  constitution  when 
it  forbids  disci'imination  or  preference  in  religion  does  not 
mean  meiely  to  guarantee  toleration  but  religious  liberty 
in  its  largest  sense,  and  a  perfect  equality  without  distinc- 
tion between  religious  sects.  The  enforced  observance  of  a 
day  held  sacred  by  one  of  these  .sects  is  a  discrimination  in 
favor  of  that  sect,  and  a  violation  of  the  religious  freedom 
of  the  others.  Considered  as  a  munici])al  regulation,  the 
Legislature  has  no  right  to  forbid  or  enjoin  the  lawful  pur- 
suit of  a  lawful  occupation  on  one  day  of  the  week  any  more 
than  it  can  f'oi-hid  it  nltogcther. 

Statute,  When  Retrospective.  In  Maine  it  was  held  that  an 
act  passed  in  1880  regulating  defenses  on  certain  contracts 
made  on  Sunday  applied  to  a  contract  made  in  187<'»,  and  a 
defense  was  rejected  because  not  complying  with  the  later 
statute.  The  statute  was  remedial  and  might  be  retrospec- 
tive.   Berry  v  CI:n-y,  77  Me.  482. 

Subscriptions  on  Sunday.     See  Sub.scrii)tions. 


784  Till';  <'I\IL    LAW    AM)  Till:  <"in   KMIF 

Sunset.  A  mortgage  t\v('(\  iii;i«i<',  cxccnlcd,  ;iiiil  recorded 
after  sunset  on  Sunday  was  sustained  in  Tracy  v  Jenks,  '.\2 
Illass.  4(1.'),  under  a  statute  of  that  State,  passed  in  1701, 
wliic'h  jtroliihited  oi-dinary  business  between  the  preceding 
midnight  and  sunset  on  Sunday. 

Surety  Contract.  A  surety  contract  executed  on  Sunday 
is  not  invalid  unless  <lelivered  to  the  beneficiary  on  tliat  <lay, 
or  he  had  knowledge  of  its  execution  on  Sunday.  Sherman 
V  Roberts,  1  Grant's  Cas.  (]»a.)  201. 

Telephone.  A  telejdione  company  may  be  required  to  keep 
its  exchange  open  during  reasonable  hours  on  Sunday.  The 
question,  "What  are  reasonable  hours?*'  depends  for  its  solu- 
tion on  various  consi<lerations,  including  the  size  of  the  town 
or  village,  the  number  of  patrons,  and  the  amount  of  income 
and  expense,  and  the  demand  for  service.  Twin  Valley  Tele- 
phone Co.  V  Mitchell,  27  Okl.  .TSS. 

Tippling  House.  In  (leorgia,  under  the  statute  prohibiting 
keeping  oi)en  a  tii)pling  hou.se  on  Sunday,  it  was  held  that  it 
made  no  difference  in  law  wliether  the  place  be  called  a  bar- 
room, or  a  glee  club  resort,  or  a  parlor,  or  a  restaurant,  if  it 
be  a  place  where  liquor  is  retailed  and  tippled  on  the  Sab- 
bath day  with  a  door  to  get  into  it,  so  kept  that  anybody 
can  push  it  open,  and  go  in  and  drink,  and  the  proprietor  of 
it  was  guilty  of  keeping  open  a  tippling  house  on  Sunday. 
Hus.sey  v  Georgia,  60  Ga.  54. 

Tort.  In  an  action  to  recover  damages  for  an  injury  result- 
ing fronj  a  tort,  it  is  no  defense  that  the  act  was  com- 
mitted on  Sunday.    Bridges  v  Bridges,  Oo  Me.  557. 

In  Logan  v  Mathews.  6  Pa.  St.  417,  it  was  held  that  the 
IVunsylvania  law  was  not  violated  by  a  son  who  hired  a 
horse  and  wagon  on  Sunday  to  visit  his  father.  "The  visit 
to  his  father  was  discharging  a  filial  duty,  which  nothing  iu 
the  law  hinders  or  forbids." 

Traveling.  A  woman  who  worked  in  a  mill  iu  one  town 
and  temporarily  boarded  there  went  on  Saturday  to  see 
her  children  in  an  adjoining  town.  One  of  them  being  sick, 
she  remained  until  Sundav  night,  when  she  went  to  the  town 


where  she  worked  lo  i»i*ocMi-e  iiiediciiie  for  tlie  sick  eliihl, 
iuteiidiii^  to  send  it  Iioiiie  by  nuotlier  person,  and  on  lier 
way  was  iiijure<l  by  a  defect  in  (he  hiuliway.  It  was  hebl 
that  the  jnry  wonhl  be  warrant''*!  in  lindiii;;  lliat  she  was 
traveliug  from  necessity  or  charity,  (jornian  v  Lowell,  117 
Mass.  65. 

The  act  of  riding  on  Sunday,  bein<>'  lawful  or  unlawful 
according  to  the  motive  and  object  of  the  party,  it  was  held, 
in  an  action  for  the  arrest  of  the  plaintiff  on  a  charge  of 
violating  the  statute  for  the  due  observation  of  tliat  day,  tliat 
the  course  of  conduct  of  the  plaintitf  immediately  preceding 
the  arrest,  particularly  his  coming  into  town  from  another 
place,  and  riding  up  and  down  the  streets,  and  going  from 
one  public  house  to  another,  was  admissible  to  show  with 
what  intent  the  plaintiff  was  riding  at  the  time  of  the  arrest. 
Ward  v  (Jreen,  11  Conn.  455. 

One  who  travels  from  one  town  to  another  on  the  Lord's 
Day  for  the  sole  i)urpose  of  visiting  a  friend  whom  he  knows 
lo  be  sick,  and  thinks  may  be  in  need  of  assistance,  and  of 
rendering  such  assistance  as  on  inquiry  he  might  lind  neces- 
sary, is  traveling  from  charity;  and  in  an  action  against  a 
railroad  corporation,  foi-  injuries  sustained  while  a  pas- 
senger on  that  day,  on  piitting  in  evidence  that  he  was  travel- 
ing for  the  pui'i)ose  above  stated,  he  is  entitled  to  go  (o  the 
jiny  on  the  question  whether  he  was  traveling  lawfully,  or 
not,  although  he  otters  no  evidence  of  the  ground  of  his  belief 
that  his  friend  was  in  need  of  assistance.  Doyle  v  Lynn  & 
r>oston  Kailroad  Com]>auy,  IIS  IMass.  195. 

The  plaintitf  lived  a  mile  from  the  church,  and  going 
thither  with  his  lady  in  his  coach  u]K)n  a  Sunday,  was 
robbed;  and  brought  tliis  action  against  (he  hundred,  and 
recovere<l ;  for  the  s(a(u(e  extends  only  to  (he  case  of  (ravel- 
ing; but  the  cliief  justice  said  if  they  had  l)een  going  (o  make 
visits,  it  might  have  been  otherwise.  Teshmakci  \  llun 
dred  de  Edmington,  1  Str.  (Eng. )  400. 

A  hired  dom('s(ic  servant  who  drovi'  liis  eni|»i(iyci's  laniily 
to  church  on  (he  Lord's   Dav  did  not    viohite   the   IVmiusvI 


786  TIM':  (M\II>   l>A\\'   AM>  Till:  <lirK(|| 

vani;i  SuiMlay  law  of  IT'.M.  ( '((iiiiiioiiwcallli  v  Ncsbil,  ill  I'a. 
31)8. 

A  journey  on  Sunday  to  visil  one's  cliildi-cn  who  arc 
properly  away  from  home  is  not  j  \iol;ilion  ot  the  N'ermont 
statute  against  traveling  on  Sunday,  except  in  (Mses  of 
necessity  or  charity,  and  the  fact  of  such  trav<'ling  is  no  bar 
to  an  action  to  recover  damages  for  injuries  receive<l  from 
a  defective  highway.     Met  Mary  v  Lowell,  44  Vi.   IK',. 

A  person  who  violates  the  law  by  traveling  <tii  Sun<lay 
may  nevertheless  recover  damages  from  a  town  for  injuries 
received  by  reason  of  a  detective  highway,  if  the  illegality  of 
so  traveling  did  not  contribute  to  the  injury.  Wentworth  v 
Jefferson,  00  N.  H.  158. 

Persons  nmy  travel  by  railroad  train  on  Sunday  to  attend 
a  camp  meetiug.  A  railroad  ticket  agent  who  sells  tickets 
for  that  purpose  ou  Sunday  is  not  guilty  of  a  violation  of 
the  statute  of  Pennsylvania  against  the  performance  of 
w^orldly  employment  or  business  on  that  day.  Conimon- 
wealth  v  Fuller,  4  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  429. 

One  who  works  by  night  instead  of  by  day,  and  travels  on 
the  Lord's  Day  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  his  master  and 
inducing  him  to  change  his  hours  of  labor  from  night  to  the 
day  time,  in  order  that  he  may  sleep  better,  is  not  traveling 
from  necessity  or  charity,  and  cannot  nuiintain  an  action 
against  a  town  for  an  injuiy  sustained  by  him  while  so 
traveling,  by  reason  of  a  defect  in  a  highway  which  the  town 
is  by  law^  obliged  to  keep  in  repair.  Connolly  v  Boston, 
117  Mass.  64. 

A  person  cannot  legally  travel  on  the  Lord's  Day  from  one 
city  to  another,  a  distance  of  several  miles,  for  the  purpose 
of  visiting  a  stranger  if  no  occasion  of  necessity  or  charity 
is  shown  for  him  to  i)ay  such  visit  and  cannot  nuiintain  an 
action  against  a  street  railway  company  to  recover  damages 
for  a  i^ersonal  injury  received  by  him  while  so  traveling  on 
one  of  their  cars,  in  consequence  of  their  negligence.  Stan- 
ton V  Metropolitan  K.  K.  Co.,  14  Allen  (Mass.)  485. 

The  facts  that  the  exercises  of  a  sjuritualist  camp  meet- 


SUNDAY  787 

ing  included  a  show  to  which  an  admittance  fee  was  charged, 
and  that  some  of  the  speakers  declared  that  they  would 
throw  away  the  Bible  in  their  search  for  the  truth,  are  not 
conclusive  that  the  person  traveling  on  the  Lord's  Day  to 
attend  the  meeting  did  so  unlawfully;  and  the  question 
whether  he  traveled  except  from  necessity  or  charity  is  for 
the  jury.  Feital  v  Middlesex  Railroad  Company,  109  Mass. 
.-{98. 

Trespass,  Adjusting-  Damages.  The  amoniit  of  damages 
ix'sulting  from  trespasses  by  animals  was  adjusted  on  Sun- 
day, and  the  agreement  was  snbsecpiently  completed  on  a 
week  day.  The  Sunday  arrangement  was  valid.  Taylor  v 
Young,  01  Wis.  :{U. 

Trust,  Declaration.  A  declaration  of  trust  executed  on  Sun- 
day for  the  purpose  of  consummating  a  jn-evious  oral  agree- 
ment that  the  pro])ert3'  conveyed  slionld  be  held  in  trnsl  for 
the  grantor  does  not  violate  the  Massachusetts  statute 
against  doing  business  on  Sunday.  Faxon  v  Folve;:.  110 
Mass.  .302. 

Vaudeville.  A  theatrical  entertainment  on  Sunday,  under 
the  auspices  of  a  .Tewish  religions  and  charitable  society, 
was  held  not  to  be  a  violation  of  the  Massachusetts  statute 
concerning  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Day.  It  was  said 
that  the  net  i»T-oceeds  of  the  entertainment  were  ])aid  to  the 
society  for  its  general  jjurposes,  which  were  conceded  to  be 
leligious  and  charitable.     Commonwealth  v  Alexander,  185 

]\iass.  r>r>\. 

Violation,  Remedy  For.  The  violation  of  the  Virginia  Sun- 
day law  was  held  not  to  be  a  misdemeanor,  and  the  forfeiture 
imi»ose(l  tlierefor  is  recoxcrable  only  by  a  civil  ^^■arranl  and 
not  by  a  criminal  wai-rant  against  the  otlcnder.  >\'ells  v 
Commonwealth.  107  \'a.  8:J4. 

Warrant.  An  escape  warrant  may  be  executed  on  Sunday. 
James  ^  Tarsons  (  Ilill.  L*  Anne)  Forts.  (I-aig.)  .■!7I. 

A  warrant  cauuol  be  iss\ied  on  Sunday  for  I  raveling  on 
that  day,  nor  can  an  arrest  be  nuide  nn<lei-  a  warrant  issued 
on  that  day.    IVarce  v  Atwootl,  \'-'>  .Mass.  ;',i*l. 


788  'IMII']  ("l\  IL   l-.\\\    AM)  Tin;  «  ||i  lajll 

Warrant  of  Attorney.  A  wan-inl  ol  ;itlorney  executed  on 
Suiidiiy  was  su.staiiu'd  in  Bakn-  v  I.nkciis,  o5  I*a.  St.  146. 

Will.  Exe(Mition  of  a  will  on  tlu*  I^ord'.s  Day  by  a  testator 
is  not  "work,  labor,  or  business,"  within  tin*  nieaniii};  of 
Massaclin.setts  jjeneral  statutes,  cliaj).  St.  s<'c.  1,  and  a  will 
soexec'ute<l  is  valid.     Bennett  v  Brooks,  !)  Allen  (Mass.)  IIJS. 


SUNDAY  SCHOOL 

Relation  to  church,  789. 

Treasurer,  when  responsible  to  parent  society,  789. 

Relation  to  Church.  Tlu*  SiiiKhiy  school  room  and  the  lec- 
ture room  of  ;i  modern  church  are  as  essentially  used  tor 
religious  purposes  as  the  body  of  the  church  building  itself. 
The  Sabbath  schools  are  an  important  auxiliary  of  every 
Christian  church  ami  indispensable  to  its  life  and  growth, 
Tliat  the  services  in  such  schools  are,  in  the  main,  of  a  reli- 
gious character  is  too  well  known  to  be  seriously  disputed. 
Oaig  V  First  Presbyterian  Church,  88  Pa.  St.  42. 

A  beipiest  to  the  society-  in  aid  of  the  Sunday  school  was 
sustained.  Tlie  school  was  an  integral  part  of  the  church 
organization,  and  therefore  embraced  within  the  scope  of 
tlie  corjjorate  fum-tions  and  work  of  the  church.  TIu'  be- 
(piest  was  sutliciently  definite  and  certain,  and  capable  of 
being  enforced.  Eutaw  Place  Baptist  Church  v  Shively, 
<;7  Md.  4!»:5. 

Treasurer,  When  Responsible  to  Parent  Society.  The  treas- 
urer of  a  Sunday  school  connected  with  a  religious  corpora- 
lion  is  responsilile  to  the  corporation  foi"  the  funds  collected 
by  such  treasurer  for  a  project  under  the  patronage  of  the 
corporation.  First  Chuich  of  Christ  Scientist  in  Buffalo, 
N.  Y.  V  Schreck,  70  Misc.  (N.  V.)  (145,  V21  N.  V.  Supp.  174. 


789 


SUPERSTITIOUS  USE 

Existence  doubt  0(1,  70(). 
Origin,  790. 

Roman  Catholic;  i)uhlications,  790. 
Shakers,  791. 

Existence  Doubted.  In  Friersoii  v  General  Assembly  of 
Presbyterian  Chnrcli,  7  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  08:5,  doubt  was  ex- 
pressed whether  in  the  United  States,  where  no  discrimina- 
tion is  made  in  law  between  the  professors  of  any  particular 
religions  creed,  any  sndi  thing  as  a  suiK'rstitious  nse  can 
be  said  to  exist. 

Origin.  In  Sliernian  v  Baker,  20  K.  I.  44(»,  it  is  sai<l  tliat 
the  strife  of  the  time  of  tJie  Keformation  natnrally  found 
vent  in  statutes.  Among  them  was  that  of  1  Edw.  \'I.  chap. 
14,  for  vesting  in  the  Crown  property,  devoted  to  "supersti- 
tion and  errors  in  Christian  religion,"  which  sjjecified  "vain 
opinions  of  purgatory  and  masses  satisfactoiy,  to  be  done 
for  them  which  were  departed."  From  this  came  the  J'^ng- 
lish  doctrine  of  sn])orstitions  uses. 

Roman  Catholic  Publications.  Moneys  in  English  stocks 
were  assigned  to  trustees  upon  trust  to  pay  the  dividends 
to  the  settler  during  his  life,  and  after  his  death  to  apply 
them  in  ])rinting  and  promoting  the  circulation  of  a  book  in 
the  Latin  and  French  languages,  inculcating  the  jjeculiar 
doctrines  of  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  ;  and  the  deetl  con- 
tained a  proviso  that  if  any  of  the  trusts  should  be  declared 
by  a  court  of  law  or  equity  to  be  void,  then  the  trustees 
should  stand  ])ossessed  of  the  fund  in  trust  for  the  executors 
and  administrators  of  the  settlers.  It  was  held  that  the 
trusts,  after  the  limitation  for  life  to  the  settler,  were  in  the 
nature  of  superstitious  uses,  and  therefore  void.  De  Them- 
mines  v  De  Bonneval,  7  L.  J.  Ch.  (Eng.)  35. 

790 


SUI'EKSTITIOUS  LSK  791 

Shakers.  Tlie  use  created  by  the  trust  lor  this  society 
would  at  uo  tiuie  siuce  the  Reforniatiou  have  beeu  deemed  a 
superstitious  use  in  Enghiud,  for  tliough  the  courts  there 
disallowed  trusts  in  favor  of  the  Catholic  or  Jewish  religion, 
as  inimical  to  the  established  religion  and  settled  policy  of 
the  government,  yet  trusts  in  favor  of  dissenting  Protestants 
have  always  been  sustained  and  enforced.  In  this  case  two 
members  of  the  society  sought  a  partition  of  its  j)roperty 
and  to  recover  their  alleged  shares  therein.  It  was  held 
that  by  the  terms  of  the  covenant  they  had  no  cause  of  action 
against  the  society.  Gass  and  Bonta  v  Wilhite,  2  Dana 
(Ky.)  170. 


SWEDENBORGIANS 

Bequest,  rejected,  792. 
Bequest,  sustained,  792. 

Bequest,  Rejected.  In  ISCl  tlic  ((iritoi-at  i(»ii  was  t'orincd  in 
Illinois  known  as  llic  (Jeueral  (.'onvention  of  the  New  Jeru- 
salem in  tlie  rnited  States  of  America.  The  charter  gave 
it  geueral  i»o\\('i-  to  receive,  take,  and  hold  i)roperty  in  any 
of  the  ordinary  ways,  specifying  them.  This  was  the  repre- 
sentative body  of  the  New  Jerusalem  Church.  Testatrix 
bequeathed  her  residuary  estate  to  two  ministers,  or  the 
survivor  of  them,  or  the  i)erson  selected  by  them,  as  their 
successor  "in  trust  for  the  benefit  of  the  New  Jerusalem 
riiurch  (Swedenborgian)  as  they  may  deem  best.''  It  was 
held  that  the  bcnpiest  could  not  be  deemed  to  have  been  for 
the  corjtoratiou  of  the  General  Convention,  but  for  the 
benefit  of  the  entire  church,  and  that  it  was,  therefore,  too 
indefinite  for  enforcement.  The  bequest  was  declared  to  be 
invalid.    Fi field  v  \'an  Wyck's  Executors.  04  Va.  557. 

Bequest,  Sustained.  The  First  New  Jerusalem  Society  of 
Pittsburgh  was  incorporated  in  l^Ct?*,  and  attached  it.self  to 
the  General  Swedenborgian  Church  of  I'ennsylvania  and 
with  the  General  Convention  of  the  Fnited  States.  The 
Fennsylvania  branch  of  the  General  Church  separated  from 
the  General  Convention  in  1800.  In  1802  tlie  Pittsburgh 
church  severed  its  connecti(m  with  the  General  Church. 
The  minority  of  llie  Pittsburgh  clmrcli  ilicn  organi/ed  a  new 
church  known  as  the  Church  ol  the  Advent.  A  bequest  to 
the  "New  Church  of  Pittsbnigh"  was  awarded  to  the  First 
New  Jerusalem  Society  of  Piushui-gh.  Ke  Aitken  Instate. 
158  Pa.  541. 


792 


TAXATION 

American  Sunday  School  Union,  793. 

Camp  Meeting  Associaticjns,  793. 

Cemetery,  793. 

Corporate  securities,  794. 

Dissenters,  794. 

Cieorgia  rule,  794. 

Illinois  rule,  794. 

Land  adjacent  to  building,  794. 

Liquor  tax  law,  795. 

Masses,  795. 

Member,  exemption,  795. 

Member,  liability,  795. 

Members,  support  of  church,  795. 

Member,  when  liability  arises,  795. 

Ministers,  796. 

New  Hampshire,  796. 

Ownership  and  use,  796. 

Parsonage,  796. 

Pennsylvania  rule,  798. 

Resulting  benefits,  798. 

Sunday  school  building,  798. 

Transfer  tax,  798. 

Use  for  other  purposes,  799. 

Worship,  lioston,  799. 

Young  Men's  Christian  Association,  799. 

American  Sunday  School  Union.  Tlio  Aiiun-iciiii  Sniulay 
School  Union,  llioii^li  (Mii;;i<;(m1  in  tiu'  jniblicat ion  iind  cir- 
culation of  nionil  ;in<l  religions  bo<»ks,  was  held  lo  lie  a  Irad- 
iiig  cor]>oi-ation  nndcr  IIh*  I'cnnsyivania  law  and  tlici'dore 
subject  to  ta.xalion.  American  Sunday'  School  Union  v 
Philadelphia,  Kil    Ua.  St.  .'.OT. 

Camp  Meeting-  Associations.     See  Cani])  Meetinj^s. 

Cemetery.  The  New  York  act  of  1ST!»,  chap.  :'.1(),  exempts 
from  assessment  eemelery  lands  owned  l»y  a  religious  cor- 
poration.    A   claim  of  ('X''mi»tion    was  snslaincd    in   Matter 

793 


70-i  Till':  ('l\'H.   LAW  AXh  Till;  rmiMil 

of  W'iiilc  rijiiiis  riTshytcrijiii  ( "liiirrli.  111'  Ajtp.  1  )iv.   I  N.  Y .) 

WImtc,  out  of  forty  acrrs  of  hind  alh'j^cd  to  lie  held  l).v  a 
cliiircli  as  a  buryinjjj  j^rouiid,  only  one  acic  was  adnally 
used  for  l»ni-ial  purposes  and  tlir  i-cniaindcr  as  faiinland,  it 
was  held  that  the  rcniainin;;  lliirly-ninc  acres  were  subject 
to  taxation.     Mnlioy  v  Clinrclunan,  ^)'2  la.  L'.'IS. 

Corporate  Securities.  In  Pennsylvania  it  was  held  that 
bonds  and  iintrtj^ajics  owned  by  a  religious  corporation,  the 
income  of  which  was  used  for  the  i)aynient  of  the  ])as1or's 
salary,  were  subject  to  taxation  under  the  act  of  1851,  which 
subjected  to  taxation  the  ]>ro])erty  of  an  association  or 
incorporated  conii)any  from  which  an  income  or  reAenue  was 
derived.  Presbyterian  Church  v  Montgomery  County,  'i 
Grant's  (\\s.   (Pa.)  245. 

Dissenters.  Conscientious  dissenters  are  liable  to  be  taxed 
for  <lebts  incurred  before  they  dissented.  Lord  v  Marvin, 
1  Koot  (Conn.)  :W0. 

Georgia  Eule.  The  constitution  of  Cleorgia  provides  that 
"No  money  shall  ever  be  taken  from  the  public  treasury 
directly  or  indirectly  in  aid  of  any  church,  sect,  or 
denomination  of  religionists,  or  of  any  sectarian  institu- 
tion." This  provision  was  held  not  to  be  violated  by  a 
statute  exem]iting  church  i)ro])erty  from  taxation.  Trustees 
First  Methodist  Ki)iscopal  Church,  South  v  Atlanta,  70  Ga. 
181. 

Illinois  Rule.  The  provision  in  the  charter  exempting  the 
society  from  taxation  for  local  improvements  was  held  void 
under  the  constitution  of  1848.  The  Legislature  had  no 
jwwer  to  extend  the  exemptions  authorized  by  that  instru- 
ment.   Chicago  V  Ba])tist  Theological  Union,  115  111.  245. 

Land  Adjacent  to  Building.  The  idea  of  a  church  edifice 
necessarily  carries  with  it  the  use  of  ground  ample  for  its 
use.  To  be  exempt  from  taxation  it  is  not  necessary  that 
such  ground  should  be  indispensable  for  the  use  of  the 
church;  but  if  it  is  no  more  than  is  reasonably  a]>pro]>riate 
to  the  jnirpose,  and  is  used  for  no  other,  it  comes  within  the 


TAXATION  795 

limits  prescribed  by  the  statute.  Maimix  v  Couuty  Com- 
missioiiei's,  0  Ohio  Dec.  18. 

Liquor  Tax  Law.  A  two-stor}-  buihliiig,  the  iij^per  story  of 
which  was  used  for  religious  worship  by  a  Jewish  congre- 
gation and  the  lower  story  for  its  Sunday  school  and  also 
by  several  Jewish  charitable  societies,  which  paid  rent  for 
the  use  of  the  building,  was  held  to  be  a  church  under  the 
liquor  tax  law.    Matter  of  McCusker,  47  A.  D.  (N.  Y.)  113. 

Masses.  A  testatrix  bequeathed  to  the  pastor  of  a  Konuin 
Catholic  church,  and  to  his  successors  as  pastors,  money 
to  be  used  in  saying  low  nuisses  for  the  repose  of  the  soul 
of  the  testatrix  and  others  named  by  her.  The  bequest  was 
held  liable  to  taxation  under  the  transfer  tax  act.  Matter 
of  McAvoy,  112  A.  D.  (X.  Y.)  377. 

Member,  Exemption.  Members  of  unincorporated  societies 
may  be  exemj)ted  from  assessments  for  sujtport  of  parish 
church.    Adams  v  Howe,  14  Mass.  340. 

Under  the  Massachusetts  act  of  1811,  chap.  G,  sec.  2,  a  per- 
son becoming  a  mend)er  of  any  religious  societj^,  though  of 
the  same  denomination  as  the  society  to  which  he  previously 
belonged,  and  filing  a  certificate  i)ursuant  to  the  statute,  is 
exempted  from  taxation  in  every  other  religious  society'. 
Holbrook  v  Ilolbrook,  1   Pick.   (Mass.)  248. 

Member,  Liability.  In  Muz/y  v  Wilkins,  Smith's  N.  H. 
Kep.  1,  it  was  held  that  a  Presbyterian  could  not  be  taxed 
for  the  support  of  a  Congregational  minister. 

Members,  Support  of  Church.  Mcndx'rs  may  be  exempted 
from  taxation  foi-  sn])i>ort  of  parish  clnircli.  Adams  v  Ilowe, 
14  Mass.  340. 

Member,  When  Liability  Arises.  Wliere  a  religious  society 
voted  to  raise  a  snm  of  money,  without  a]»pro]>riating  it, 
intending  tliat  it  should  be  assessed  on  a  valuation  of  the 
1st  of  May  following,  and  be  applied  to  defray  expenses  to 
be  incurred  after  that  day,  it  w:is  held  that  a  ]>ers()n  who 
separated  himself  from  the  society  after  the  vote,  and  before 
the  first  of  ;Miiy,  was  not  linble  to  assessment.  Inglee  V 
Bosworth,  5  Pick.  (Mass.)  501. 


700        Till';  ('i\  II.  LAW  ANh  Tin;  riirijcii 

Ministers.     In  l'('iiiisylv;iiii;i  il  \\;is  licld  in  ( "oniinonuciillli 

V  (^uyler,  5  W;itts  &  S.  (I'n.)  27;"),  Hint  the  act  of  ISJl,  pro- 
viding for  taxing  {salaries  of  ])ul)lic  officers,  did  not  apply  to 
a  Presbyterian  minister.  He  did  not  hold  a  pul)lic  office,  and 
liis  position  was  not  within  the  statute. 

By  the  Connecticnt  act  of  1702  a  fund  jjrovided  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  luinistry  of  the  gos])el  was  exemj)t  from 
taxation,  and  this  exenii)tion  w  as  not  abolished  by  the  adop- 
tion of  a  State  constitution,  iioi-  by  subsequent  State  stat- 
utes. Such  a  fund,  owned  by  an  incorj)orated  religious 
society,  was  assessed  on  the  town  tax  list,  and  the  tax  was 
collected  from  a  member  of  the  societ3^  In  an  action  by 
him  against  the  town  to  recover  the  amount  so  paid  it  was 
held  that  he  was  entitled  to  judgment,  for  the  reason  that 
the  property'  was  exempt.  From  the  opinion  in  this  case, 
it  seems  that  members  of  an  incorporated  religious  society 
are  liable  personally  for  the  debts  of  the  corporation. 
Atwater  v  Woodbridge,  0  Conn.  22.'3. 

Assessors  act  judicially  in  determining  a  minister's  claim 
to  exemption  from  taxation  and  are  not  liable  personally 
for  an  erroneous  decision.    "Rarhyte  v  Shepherd,  85  N.  Y.  238. 

New  Hampshire.  The  constitution  of  New  Hampshire  does 
not  exempt  church  property-  from  taxation.  A  statute  of 
the  State  exemjjted  such  property  up  to  the  value  of  SI 0,000 
and  jtrovided  for  taxing  the  excess.    Franklin  Street  Society 

V  Manchester,  00  N.  H.  342. 

Ownership  and  Use.  In  order  to  eutitle  church  property  to 
exemi»ti()n  from  taxation  it  must  not  only  be  used  exclu- 
sively for  religious  purposes  but  must  be  owned  by  the  con- 
gregation. In  this  instance  the  laud  was  owned  by  an  indi- 
vidual who  had  erected  thereon  a  house  of  worship  for  the 
use  of  a  religious  society.  The  property  was  held  to  be  subject 
to  taxation.    People  ex  rel  Swigert  v  Anderson,  117  Til.  50. 

Parsonage.  The  use  of  property,  and  not  the  ownership, 
determines  the  question  of  exemption.  Parsonages  are  not 
exeni])t  although  erected  on  a  ]>ortion  of  a  church  lot,  which 
would  otherwise  be  exempt,  and  occupied  by  the  minister 


TAXATION  797 

free  of  rent,  if  the  language  of  the  exemption  only  includes 
places  actually'  used  for  religious  worship  with  the  grounds 
attached  thereto  and  appurtenant  to  the  house  of  worship. 
A  parsonage  which  was  not  occupied  by  the  minister  of  the 
church,  but  was  rented  out,  was  held  not  to  be  exempt  from 
taxation  under  the  provision  of  the  Kentucky  constitution 
exeni])ting  from  taxation  a  parsonage  occupied  as  a  home, 
and  lor  no  otlici-  jmrjioses,  by  the  minister  of  any  religion. 
Broadway  Christian  (Mnu'ch  v  Commonwealth,  2:)  Ky.  (Part 
11  j   KJ!*.'). 

A  parsonage  erected  by  a  religious  society  on  their  church 
lot  is  liable  to  taxation  as  real  estate.  State,  Church  of 
the  Kedeemer  v  Axtell,  41  N.  J.  L.  117. 

A  building  used  by  a  religious  society  as  a  rectory  or  par- 
sonage is  subject  to  taxation.  First  Presbyterian  Church  v 
New  Orleans,  30  J.a.  Ann.  251). 

Under  the  provisions  of  the  fourth  clause  of  the  sixth 
section  of  the  Indiana  assessment  law  (1  (J.  &  11.  G9 )  a  par- 
sonage that  has  been  erected  for  the  convenience  and  accom- 
modation of  the  pastor  of  a  church  is  not  exempted  from 
taxation.  Trustees  of  Methodist  Episco])al  Church  v  Ellis, 
nS  Ind.  ;:5. 

A  parsonage  is  used  for  a  residence,  and  therefore  pri- 
marily for  a  scculai-  ]»urpose.  A  statute  exempting  it  from 
taxation  \\as  held  invalid  under  the  Illinois  const ituti<Mi, 
A\lii(h  ]»roIiihits  tlie  Legislature  from  exempting  from  taxa- 
tion i)i'operty  not  used  exclusively  for  religious  ]uirposes. 
Peoi)le  ex  rel  Tliompson  v  First  Congregational  Churcii,  2:'.2 
III.  158. 

Wliere  it  a]»pears  by  a  case  stated  that  a  jiart  of  a  biiihl- 
ing  erected  f(tr  the  j)nrposes  of  religious  \\'orship  is  in  use  as 
a  parsonage  these  facts  arc  not  sufficient  to  sn|ii>ort  a  tax 
ujKjn  that  part  <»r  the  clinrcli  building  in  use  as  a  j)arsonage, 
tlie  bnilding  being  exempt  nmler  the  act  of  May  14,  1874. 
Xorlhani])i(»n  <  "onniy  v  St.  Peter's  ( "liniiii,  .">  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  41(5. 

In  Iowa  a  parsonage  was  held  exenipl  I  roin  taxation. 
Cook  V  Hutch  ins.  4(1  la.  7(Mi. 


798  THE  CI\  II.   LAW  A  M  >    I'lli;  (I  I  IK*  11 

r;n'S()ii;i;i;('  is  siil)j('(l  to  l;i.\;il  idii.  Stale,  I'Mrst  KcIoiiimmI 
Dutch  dnirch  v  Lyon,  'A2  N.  .1.  I..  ;'.(;(). 

Tlui  ])arsoiiajj(»  was  held  lial)l(!  (o  taxation  although  stand- 
ing on  the  same  parcel  of  land  as  the  clnirch  edifice,  front- 
ing on  the  same  street,  and  separated  Irom  the  church  by  a 
narrow  si)ace.  l*eoj)le  ex  rel  Hutchinson  v  Collison,  22  Aid). 
N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  52. 

Pennsylvania  Rule.  In  ]*ennsylvania  it  was  held  that  tlie 
constitutional  i)rovision  exempting  church  i)roi)erty  from 
taxation  relates  to  taxes  pi-oper,  or  general  public  contribu- 
tions, levied  and  collected  by  the  State,  or  by  its  authorized 
municipal  agencies,  for  general  governmental  purposes  as 
distinguished  from  peculiar  forms  of  taxation  or  special 
assessments  imposed  upon  property,  within  limited  areas  for 
the  payment  of  local  improvements  theiein,  by  which  pro^)- 
erty  assessed  is  specially  and  peculiarly  benefited  and  en- 
hanced in  value  to  an  amount  at  least  equal  to  the  assess- 
ment, and  that,  therefore,  a  church  was  liable  to  assessment 
for  paving  a  street  in  front  of  its  property.  Broad  Street, 
Sewickley  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  105  Pa.  St.  475. 

Resulting  Benefits.  "l*roperty  is  made  more  secure  both 
by  the  education  of  children,  and  the  religious  and  moral 
instruction  of  adults.  In  this  additional  security  every 
owner  of  an  estate  receives  a  compensation  for  the  moneys 
paid  by  him  toward  the  support  of  those  institutions.''  The 
propertj^  of  a  manufacturing  corporation  was  held  liable 
to  taxation  for  ])arish  ]»uri)oses.  Amesbury  Nail  Factory 
(^ompany  v  Weed,  IT  Mass.  rA. 

Sunday  School  Building.  A  corporation  was  organized  for 
the  i)urpose  of  erecting  a  Sunday  school  building.  The 
first  story  was  used  for  Sunday  school  and  religious  meet- 
ings. The  second  story  was  leased  to  the  city  for  public 
school  purj)oses.  A  special  act  exem])ted  the  property  of 
this  Sunday  school  association  from  all  taxation.  It  was 
held  that  the  entire  property  was  exempt.  Howard  Sunday 
School  Association  A])]>eal,  70  Pa.  .'Vt4. 

Transfer  Tax.     A  devise  to  a  reliirious  societv  of  land  and 


TAXATION  700 

buil(liiiy;s  thereon,  to  be  used  exclusively  as  a  parsonage,  is 
not  subject  to  the  succession  tax  uuder  the  Massachusetts 
act  of  1801.  First  Fniversalist  Society.  Salem  v  Jiradlord, 
185  Mass.  :J10. 

A  bequest  to  St.  TaiiTs  Protestant  Episco])al  Cliurcli, 
I'onghkeepsie,  was  held  liable  to  taxation.  Catlin  v  Trinity 
College,  li:;  N.  Y.  i:;:i. 

Use  for  Other  Purposes.  Chni-ch  ])ro])erty  occasionally 
rented  for  lectures,  concerts,  i-eadings,  amateur  theati'icals, 
and  other  like  entertainments  does  not  thereby  become  sub- 
ject to  taxation,  especially  if  the  income  is  u.sed  for  the  bene- 
fit of  the  local  society.  Such  use  of  the  i)ro])erTy  is  not  a  de- 
parture from  the  ordinary  purposes  of  the  property  sullicient 
to  show  an  intention  to  devote  it  to  commercial  purposes. 
First  Tnitarian  Society,  Hartford  v  Hartford,  (50  Conn.  'M\S. 

Worship,  Boston.  The  inhabitants  of  Boston  never  were 
comjxdlable  by  law  to  i)ay  taxes  for  the  sui)port  of  public 
worshij).  Attorney-(Teneral  v  Proprietors  Meetinghouse  in 
Federal  Street,  Boston,  :\  (Jray   (Mass.)   1,  ;J0. 

Young  Men's  Christian  Association.  A  branch  association 
in  Auburn,  Maine,  owned  real  property  a  part  of  which 
was  rented  for  a  boarding  house  and  another  part  for  stores. 
The  portions  of  the  proi)erty  so  rented  were  held  liable  to 
taxation.    Auburn  v  Y.  M.  C.  A.,  Auburn,  8<'>  Me.  214. 

Under  the  revenue  act  of  Illinois,  real  estate  of  a  Young 
Men's  Christian  Association,  the  object  of  which  associa- 
tion is  the  improvement  of  the  si)iritual,  mental,  social, 
and  physical  condition  of  young  men,  which  real  estate  is 
leased  to  various  tenants  for  profit,  is  not  exempt  from  taxa- 
tion. Peojde  e.x  rel  (lore  v  Young  Men's  Christ i;ni  .Kssocia- 
tion,  157  111.  40:{. 

Proi)erty  owned  by  this  associalictn  in  Louisville,  Ken- 
tucky, was  hehl  exempt  from  taxation  on  the  grountl  Ihat 
the  buildings  were  used  as  j)laces  of  religious  worship. 
Adjacent  vacant  lots  held  for  sale  were  al.so  e.vempt.  Com- 
monwealth V  Young  Men's  Christian  Association,  1*5  Ky. 
Law  Rep.  040. 


TOWN 

Connecticut,  ecclesiastical  aiTairs,  800. 
Maine,  parochial  powers,  801. 
Mjissachusetts,  parochial  powers,  801. 
New  Hampshire,  gospel  land,  802. 
New  Hampshire,  parochial  powers,  802. 

Connecticut,  Ecclesiastical  Affairs.  The  iiihabitant.s  of  each 
town  ill  this  State  (Coiiiiecticut  j  not  divided  into  .societie.s, 
are  b^-  law  a  corjioration  for  tlie  purpo.se  of  supporting 
jjublic  worship  and  the  gospel  ministry,  as  well  as  for  civil 
purposes;  and  in  their  corporate  capacity'  have  i)ower  to 
receive  and  hold  estates,  real  and  personal,  for  said  uses, 
and  to  call  and  settle  ministers,  build  meetinghouses,  etc. 
The  name  and  description  bj^  which  they  receive  estates,  and 
transact  business  in  their  ecclesiastical  and  civil  capacity* 
is  the  same,  to  wit,  the  inhabitants  of  the  town  of,  etc. 

When  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  such  town  are  constituted 
a  new  and  distinct  society  the  remaining  inhabitants  are  by 
law  considered,  for  ecclesiastical  i>nrposes,  as  the  same  cor- 
poration, having  continuance  and  succession,  by  the  name 
of  the  inhabitants  of  the  first  society,  and  which  before 
existed  by  the  name  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  town,  and  as 
holding  the  meetinghouse  and  all  other  estates  that  the 
inhabitants  of  such  town  received,  acquired,  and  held,  for 
any  of  the  uses  for  which  societies  are  constituted,  and  as 
bound  to  perform  all  the  contracts  and  agreements  made  by 
the  inhabitants  of  such  town,  with  the  minister  for  his  sup- 
port, or  respecting  any  other  matter  appropriate  to  a  society. 
Huntington  v  Carpenter,  Kirby   (Conn.i   45. 

In  Connecticut  every  town  incorporated  by  law  contains 
in  it  all  the  rights,  powers,  and  privileges  of  an  ecclesiastical 
society,  and  is  subject  to  all  the  duties,  and  so  long  as  it 

800 


TOWN  801 

remains  in  one  entire  body,  may  manage  its  ecclesiastical 
concerns  in  town  meeting;  but  as  soon  as  the  inhabitants 
become  separated,  for  ecclesiastical  purposes,  as  a  part 
being  set  off  and  annexed  to  other  societies,  they  must  cease 
to  transact  their  ecclesiastical  business  in  town  meeting— 
as  a  town  they  include  all  the  divisions — as  an  ecclesiastical 
society  they  exclude  them.  And  this  ecclesiastical  society 
continues  to  exist  through  all  the  divisions  and  subdivisions, 
and  hath  right  to  have  and  hohl  all  interests  granted  to  the 
town  for  ecclesiastical  uses,  at  a  time  when  there  was  no 
other  ecclesiastical  society  in  the  town  that  could  lake. 
Sedgwick,  etc.   v   TMerce,  2  Koot    (Conn.j    4.'U. 

Maine,  Parochial  Powers,  hi  Maine  towns  in  which  no 
distinct  and  separate  jKirish  or  icligious  society  has  l)een 
establishe<l  may  jnovide  for  religious  iii.struclion  by  the; 
erection  of  meetinghouses  and  the  sujujoit  of  ministers;  b\it 
this  power  ceases  on  the  establislimenl  of  a  se]»arate  i)arish 
in  the  town,  and  thereafter  taxation  and  otlier  i>roceedings 
must  be  in  the  name  of  the  parish.  Alna,  Inhabitants  of  v 
Plummer,  3  Me.  88. 

Massachusetts,  Parochial  Powers.  The  town  settles  a  min- 
ister and  makes  other  contracts  of  a  parochial  nature;  it 
also  establishes  schools,  engages  instructors,  and  makes 
contracts  in  regard  to  other  munici])al  objects.  It  also 
])urchases  an<l  receives  grants,  donations,  and  conveyances 
(»f  pi'o]>erty,  real  and  pei'sonal,  some  expressed  to  l»e  I'oi-  ilic 
support  of  a  minister  an<]  others  for  the  supi>ort  of  schools, 
all  of  which  are,  or  may  be,  held  and  managed  under  one 
corporate  organization  and  by  one  set  of  officers.  After- 
ward a  part  of  such  town  is  set  olV  into  a  distinct  territoi-ial 
or  poll  parish,  and  the  remainder  of  the  town  by  law  be- 
comes a  j)ari.sh.  After  the  sej>ai-ation  all  those  rights, 
duties,  and  obligations  which  belonged  to  the  t(»wn  in  its 
parochial  character  devolve  npon  that  portion  of  its  inhab- 
itants, who  by  o|»eiation  (»r  law  become  successors  lo  tlie 
town  in  that  cajiacity;  whilst  all  those  which  bebtngxMl  to 
the  town  in  its  nMinici[)al  character  continue  so  to  belong. 


SOL'  TIM':   CIX  IL    LAW   AM>   'I'lli;   CIUKCIl 

Molwillishmdiiij;  llic  erection  of  :i  new  juii'isli.  Stclibiiis 
V  Jeiniiii^s,  10  Tick.  (M;iss.)   171'. 

Towns  iii.iy  jisscss  t;ix«'s  for  pni-isli  |)iii']»os(*s  ;nul  coiifluct 
jtai'ociiiul  j)i'oce(M]iii<^s.  Aslihy  v  W'ciiiii^toii,  S  Pick.  (MasH. ) 
524. 

New  Hampshire,  Gospel  Land.  In  a  j;ranf  to  a  townsliip  it 
was  j»i-ovi<l('(l  liial  one  share  of  laiul  slionld  be  "for  ainl 
toward  the  sui)i)or<  of  the  <;osi»('l  ininistrv  there  forever." 
Tt  was  held  that  this  share  belonged  to  the  town  ;  that  a 
minister  settled  ovei'  a  clmich  and  incorporated  relij^ious 
society  in  the  town  could  not  hold  it  against  the  town;  and 
that  the  town  could  sell  the  land  and  divide  the  proceeds 
equally'  among  the  dilferent  Christian  denominations  tlierein. 
Cilley  V  Cayford,  Smith  (N.  H.)  150. 

New  Hampshire,  Parochial  Powers.  The  New  Hampshire 
act  of  l.'^1!>  repealing  the  law  authorizing  towns  to  vote  and 
grant  money  for  the  settlement,  maintenance,  and  support 
of  the  ministry'  did  not  deprive  them  of  the  right  to  appro- 
priate property  previously  ac<piired  for  religious  i)urposes 
to  the  uses  for  which  it  was  designed  by  granting  it  to  reli- 
gious societies  within  the  town.  Candia  v  French,  8  N.  H. 
133. 


TREASURER 

General  duty,  803. 

Liability,  803. 

Power  to  borrow  money,  804. 

General  Duty.  Money  was  contributed  to  the  society  for 
the  purpose  of  building-  a  (•liurcli  edilice.  The  pastoi-  dclix- 
ered  it  to  a  ti-easuier  to  be  k(']»t.  It  was  hebl  that  he  had 
no  right  to  withhold  it  on  the  ground  that  the  vestry  in- 
tended to  divert  it  from  the  purpo.ses  for  whi(  li  it  was  com- 
tributed.  If  such  contribution  created  a  trust,  it  became 
such  only  between  the  vestry  and  the  contributor,  and  the 
vestry  is  responsible  to  him  if  it  diverts  the  fiind.  The 
treasurer's  duty  is  to  return  to  his  i>rincii>al  his  ju-incipal's 
money  when  due,  whether  it  be  trust  funds  or  not.  Moinit 
Calvary  Church  v  Albers,  174  Mo,  ;531. 

Liability.  A  treasurer  of  a  religious  society  is  personally 
responsible  for  its  fnnds  received  by  him,  and  may  l>e  re- 
quired to  make  restitnticm  <»f  any  funds  that  may  have  been 
niisaj)plied.  The  board  of  trustees  Iiave  no  power  to  direct 
tlie  use  of  a  trust  fund  for  the  payment  of  the  pastor's  sal- 
ary.   Immanuel  Presbyteiian  (Munch  \  Kiedy.  101  La.  ;'»ll. 

Funds  were  contributed  foi'  the  juirpose  of  eretting  a 
building  for  the  use  of  a  Sunday  school.  The  treasurei-  of 
the  church  received  the  money,  but  aflei-  tlie  terminalion  of 
Ids  office  refused  to  ]tay  oncc  the  fund  to  the  cliurch.  It  was 
held  that  the  society  had  a  right  to  recover  the  fund. 
''Though  the  sub.scription  may  have  been  set  on  foot  with- 
(uit  authority  from  the  (huicli  as  a  corporation,  yet  if  the 
money  was  raised  appaiently  as  a  <-hurch  fund,  and  tin' 
donors,  at  the  time  of  giving,  supp(»sed  that  tliey  were  giv- 
ing to  the  church,  and  intend«'d  so  to  do,  the  churdi  coidd 
adopt  the  acts  of  those  wlio  laised  the  fuml  and  claim  th<* 

803 


SOI         Till',  <'i\iL  LAW  AM)  'I'lii;  <'iiri;(ii 

iK'iictil  of  IIh'  (litii.il  ions  tor  the  |iiir-])(»sc  lor'  which  llicv  were 
l^ivcii."  The  chin'cii  Wiis  csiM'ciiilly  ;iiitlM»ri/-('(l  l»y  st;iliitc 
lo  accomplish  llic  jd-ccisc  jmrjtosc  lor  which  Ihc  riiii<l  was 
raised.  The  ('\i(l('nc('  was  snlliciciit  to  show  (hat  the  t'mid 
was  subscribed  lor  (he  bcnctit  of  the  cinii-cli.  ami  not  siiii|»ly 
fof  llic  Sunday  school  coimeclccl  with  the  clniich.  Itcctor, 
(Mmrch  of  the  IxcdcciiKM-  v  Crawford.  A'.\  X.  V.   IKI. 

Power  to  Borrow  Money.  There  is  no  iiresiimption  that  a 
treasurer  of  a  relij^ioiis  corpoi'atioii  has  ]»ower  to  i»oi'i(»w 
uiouey,  sign  notes,  and  hind  the  coi-i>oratif)n.  Ilis  authority 
must  be  established  by  evidence.  Wilson  v  Tabernacle  Bapt. 
Church,  28  Misc.   (N.  Y.)  2G8. 


TRUSTEES 

Abandonment  of  office,  80G. 

Actions,  de  facto  trustees,  806. 

Actions,  Illinois  rule,  806. 

Actions,  pre-orKanization  contracts,  807. 

Action,  trespaiis,  807. 

Appointment  by  court,  807. 

Appointment  by  minister,  807. 

Borrowing  money,  807. 

Building  committee,  808. 

By-laws,  808. 

By-laws,  assessments  on  pewholders,  808. 

Closing  church,  808. 

Control  of  property,  808. 

Conveyance,  800. 

Conveyance  by,  when  required^  809. 

Corporate  character,  Maryland  rule,  809. 

Corporate  control  of,  809. 

Covenant  of  warranty,  810. 

De  facto,  810. 

Diversion  of  property,  810. 

Election,  811. 

Election,  burden  of  proof,  812. 

Election,  place,  812. 

Emj)loyment  of  counsel,  812. 

E.xcluding  minister  from  church  edifice,  812. 

Forcible  entry  and  detainer,  812. 

Holding  over,  813. 

Individual  authority,  813.' 

Individual  habihty,  813. 

Joint  interest,  814. 

LiabiUty,  proi)erty  sold  to  |)astor,  814. 

Meeting,  duty  to  attend,  S14. 

Meeting  necessary,  814. 

Mingling  charital)li'  and  other  funds,  815. 

Minister's  employnienl,  Sl.'j. 

Occupying  i)roperly  ;ifter  termination  of  contract,  815. 

Official  term,  816. 

805 


sm  'rili;  ('l\IL   LAW    AM)  Tin:  CllUUCH 

Ollicial  title  must  be  Hhowii,  SlG. 

Ouster,  elTect,  Sl(». 

Possession  of  properlj',  <S1(). 

Powers,  (leorKia  rule,  S17. 

Powers,  Maine  rule,  817. 

Powers,  New  York  rule,  817. 

Powers,  Pennsylvania  rule,  818. 

Presumption  of  oflieial  title,  818. 

Promissory  note,  81   . 

Property,  trustees  cannot  distribute,  819. 

(Quorum,  819. 

(^uo  warranto,  820. 

Religious  services,  820. 

Removal,  820. 

Representative  character,  cannot  act  in  two  capacities,  821. 

Representative  character,  821. 

Roman  Catholic,  how  chosen,  822. 

Seating,  power  to  regulate,  822. 

Status,  822. 

Statute  of  limitations  cannot  be  waived,  823. 

Temporahties,  823. 

Title  to  office,  823. 

Title  to  office,  necessar}-  to  maintain  action,  823. 

Abandonment  of  Office.  A  trustee  who  witlidraws  from  the 
(.'hiircli  iimst  be  deemed  to  have  abandoned  his  olliee,  e.s])e- 
ciall}'  when  he  joins  another  eliureh  which  jn-ohibits  its 
members  from  holding  otiicial  relations  in  other  denomina- 
tions.    Ross  V  Crockett,  14  La.  Ann.  811. 

A  trustee  who  calls  for  and  receives  a  letter  of  dismissal 
from  the  society  does  not  thereby  necessarily  withdraw  from 
the  civil  constituency  of  the  churcli.  but  by  his  acts  and 
conduct,  especially  ]>arti(i]>atin<;  in  the  oriianizalion  of  an- 
othei'  society,  he  may  be  deemed  to  lia\e  abdicated  his  ottice. 
which  thereby  became  vacant  and  mi^ht  be  liHed  by  a  new 
election.    Laight  SI.  Church  v  Noe.  IL*  How.  Vv.  i  X.  V.)  4i»7. 

Actions.  De  Facto  Trustees.  The  trustees  <le  facto  of  an 
unincorporated  society  may  maintain  an  action  for  tresj)ass 
on  the  society's  property.  Green  v  Cady,  1)  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
414. 

Actions,  Illinois  Rule.     In  Illinois  actions  by  or  against  a 


TRUSTEES  SOT 

religious  society  iiiiist  be  in  name  of  trustees.    Ada  Si.  Mcili 
odisf  I-4)iseoi»al  Cliuicli  v  Garnsey,  Hit  111.  loH. 

Actions,  Pre-Organization  Contracts.  "The  trustees  of  an 
iiicorj»orate(l  church,  as  the  rejtreseutatives  of  all  the  nieiu- 
bers  of  a  church,  nuiy  in  the  corjiorate  nanui  enforce  aj^rec- 
nients  made  for  the  use  and  benetit  of  the  society  before  iis 
lej^al  orfjanizatioii."  Whitsitt  v  Trustees  Proeniptidn  Trcs- 
byterian  Churcli.  1  10  III.  llM. 

Action,  Trespass.  Where  a  religious  society  coiisisiin;;  ot 
many  wors]ii|»ers  was  the  owner  of  certain  lands  in  (ontro- 
versy  its  trustees  wvw  entitled  to  sue  for  an  injury  to  the 
freehold,  consisting  of  a  wi-ongfnl  removal  of  coal  from  be- 
neath the  land,  witiiout  joining  the  members  of  tlie  con- 
gregation. I'enny  v  Central  Coal  and  Coke  Comi)any,  loS 
Fed.  7C9. 

Appointment  by  Court.  The  action  of  a  circuit  court  in 
appointing  trustees  of  church  ])roperty  is  the  subject  of 
aj)peal,  and  the  ipiestion  of  the  regularity  or  validity  of 
their  ai)i)ointment  cannot  be  questioned  collaterally  in  an 
action  of  ejectment  by  newly  appointed  trustees  to  recover 
possession  from  trustees  removed.  Kreglo  v  Fulk,  .*>  W.  Y;\. 
74. 

Appointment  by  Minister.  The  preacher  in  charge,  by  a 
certificate  in  due  form,  ajipointed  trustees  of  the  society.  It 
was  held  that  this  constituted  the  persons  ti-ustees  of  the 
proi)erty.  On  the  day  of  their  a]»pointment  the  trustees 
received  a  dee<l  of  land  in  trust  for  the  erection  of  a  house  ot 
worship  thereon,  according  to  the  rules  and  Discijiline  of  the 
denominat  iou.  A  house  oC  worshij>  was  erected  on  the  land 
in  1854.  An  a(lion  was  brought  to  quiet  Ihe  title,  which 
involve<l  m:iny  (piestions  iclating  to  li'usts  and  the  validity 
of  the  tiust  contained  in  the  origiinil  conveyance,  bul  these 
were  not  dis|»<>sed  of  by  Ihe  court.  Methodist  l'pisco|»al 
Church,   New. irk  v  (Mark,  41    Mich.  7:10. 

Borrowing  Money.  The  power  to  borrow  money  is  implied 
in  a  charter  of  a  religious  society  uidess  such  power  is 
actuallv  <lenied   bv    ihe   cliiiiter.      'i'lu-    li-ustees   li:id    "('iieiiil 


SOS        'I'm;  ("i\  II.  LAW  A.\h  'riii;  <  ini.'cii 

siijM'i-x  isioii  of  llic  coi'itorjilioii  ;ijl;iirs.  I'lHJcr  lliis  iiiiplicd 
|Mi\\cr.  ;iii  iiHli\  idiiiil  iM)t«'  ji;iv«'ii  by  :i  Inislcc  lor  iiioiioy 
borrowed  l<>  iclmild  llic  clnirrli  ('(lilicr  \\;is  held  (u  he  ;i 
d('l)l  ;i<;;niis(  llic  coiiMtnilion,  ;iiid  iiii  wclioii  \v;is  iiiaiiitain- 
nldc  lluM-con.  I'^iT-sl  liaplisl  ('iinr<-li,  lOrie  v  (Jangliej',  S5  I*a. 
SI.  271. 

Building  Committee.  Where  a  building  conuiiittee  repre- 
senting an  nnincorporated  religious  association  consists  of 
n\c  nicnd)ers,  authority  to  make  binding  contracts  in  behalf 
of  the  coninuttee  would  have  to  be  exercised  by  a  majority 
td*  the  UKMubers,  either  directly  or  by  delegating  the  i)o\ver 
to  a  less  nnndter.  One  member  alone  coidd  not  contract 
without  being  authorized  so  to  do  by  a  majority.  New 
Ebenezer  Association  v  (Jress  Lundjer  Company,  SI)  Ga.  1-5. 

By-Laws.  The  society  or  congregation  appoints  the  trus- 
tees, and  nmy  remove  them  and  lill  the  vacancies.  It  may 
ado))!  such  rules  and  regulations  in  ndation  to  the  duties 
of  tlie  trustees,  and  the  management  of  its  society,  as  the 
mend)ers  may  deem  proper.  Calkins  v  Cheney,  02  Til. 
4(i;>. 

By-Laws,  Assessments  on  Pewholders.  The  trustees  of  a  reli- 
gions association  may  adui)t  by  laws  or  resolutions  to  equal- 
ize the  anu)unt  necessary  for  its  suj)i»ort,  and  assess  the  pro- 
l)ortionable  amount  on  each  pewholder,  thougli  there  is  no 
l)rovision  in  the  constitution  or  articles  of  association 
authorizing  them  so  to  do.  A  i)ewholder  was  liable  for 
any  increased  assessment  so  levied  by  the  trustees.  Currj' 
V  First   Presbyterian  Congregation,  2  Pittsbui'gh   (I*a.)   40. 

Closing  Church.  The  trustees  of  a  religious  society  do  not 
have  the  j>ower  of  closing  its  church  at  their  own  will,  be- 
cause of  their  judgment  to  keei>  the  church  oi>en  will  be  to 
defeat  the  i)urj)ose  foi-  which  the  association  Mas  formed. 
Their  i)ower  is  only  to  manage  the  prudential  affairs  of  the 
society.  Canadian  Keligious  Association  v  Parmenter,  180 
Mass.  415.    See  Ministers,  lOxclusion  from  Church  Editice. 

Control  of  Property.  Tiie  tiustees,  as  oflScers  of  the  cor- 
poration, have  entire  control   over  tlip  ])roi)erty  owned   by 


TRUSTEES  son 

the  corporation,  including  tlie  clmrcli  or  phue  ot  worship, 
and  courts  of  equity  have  no  jurisdiction  to  interfere  with 
the  actions  and  doings  of  tlie  trustees  in  the  niaiiagcnient 
of  the  property  belonging  to  the  cor])oratioii,  for  the  reason 
that  the  Legislature  had  expressly  exempted  religious  (or- 
porations  from  the  jurisdiction  which  liad  been  given  to 
these  courts  over  other  corporations.  Ishaiii  v  I'lillagt-r,  li 
Abb.  N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  8G:J.  But  see  the  act  of  1875,  chap.  1\), 
also  the  act  of  187(5,  chap.  17(5.  These  acts  concern  the  trus- 
tees as  agents  of  llie  cori)oration.  The  title  to  tlie  i)roperty 
continued  in  the  corporation,  but  it  was  made  tlie  duty  of  the 
trustees  to  use  and  manage  the  i)roperty  and  revenues  of 
the  corporation  according  to  the  rules,  usages,  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  church  or  denomination  to  which  it  belongs, 
that  is,  the  si)iritual  bo<ly,  the  members  thereof  wlio  organ- 
ized and  were  instrumental  in  creating  tlie  corporation; 
and  if  they  dei)art  from  this  rule,  they  ai-e  sid)ject  to  be 
restrained  by  the  courts.  Isham  v  Fullager,  14  Abb.  N.  C. 
(N.  Y.)  3(5:i. 

Conveyance.  Where  trustees  of  a  gospel  lot  were  by  stat- 
ute declared  to  be  a  body  i)olitic  and  corporate  a  deed  of 
a  part  of  the  land  signed  by  them  as  individuals  was  sus- 
tained.   De  Zeng  v  Beekman,  2  Hill  ( N.  Y.)   180. 

Conveyance  By,  When  Required.  Persons  who  purchase 
land  in  their  own  names  but  for  tlie  benefit  of  a  religious 
society  are  bound  to  convey  such  land  to  the  society  ui)on 
its  incorporation.  Such  conveyance  is  charged  with  a  trust 
in  favor  of  the  society.  Trustees  So.  Bai>t.  Church  v  Yates, 
1  Hoffman  (1i.   (N.  Y.)   141. 

Corporate  Character,  Maryland  Rule.  The  trustees  and  not 
the  members  constitute  the  corj^jration.  African  Methodist 
Bethel  Church,  Baltimore  v  CarmacU,  l'  Md.  <"h.  1  \.'>. 

Corporate  Control  of.  T\obertson  v  Bullions,  11  N.  V.  LM57, 
sustained  the  right  of  a  pin-tion  of  the  corpoi-ators  to  pre- 
vent the  trustees  fi-<tni  api»lviiiu  the  u-niporalilics  of  the 
church  in  i)aying  for  (he  .sei-vices  of  a  ministef  who  had 
been  duly  deposecl  from  his  ollice. 


sio        Tin:  ('i\ii.  LAW  AND  'I'lii:  cmi:*!! 

Covenant  of  Warranty.  Trnsiccs  in  ;i  <1c(m|  of  (■li\iirii  pi-oj)- 
v\\\  iii(hHl«'«l  ;i  covciijiiil  (d"  waiTjiiity.  TlH-re  was  no  ovi- 
(k'iH(^  of  jindunily  I'loiii  (lie  toiigi-c^alioii  let  make  this  war- 
ranty. It  was  held  that  the  trn.slccs  were  persotially  liahle 
on  Ihc  covcnanl.     Klopp  v  Moore,  0  Kan.  27. 

De  Facto.  A  de  facto  trnslee  i.s  one  who  i.s  acting  as  an 
ollicer  nn<ler  color  of  having  Ikhmi  rightfully  elected  or  ap- 
pointed. Trustees,  East  Norway  Lake  Norwegian  lOvangel- 
ical  Lutheran  Church  and  others,  v  llalvorson,  42  Minn.  TjO:}. 

A  deed  of  land  to  trustees  de  facto  of  an  unincorporated 
leligious  society  conveys  no  title  to  the  society.  Bundy  v 
Birdsall,  2J)  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  31. 

The  proceedings  of  de  facto  trustees  are  valid  till  they  are 
ousted  by  a  judgment  at  the  suit  of  the  people,  and  no 
advantage  can  be  taken  of  any  nonuser  or  misuser  on  the 
]»art  of  the  cori)oration  by  any  defendant,  in  any  collateral 
action.  All  Saints  Church  v  Lovett,  1  Hall's  Sup.  Ct.  (N.  Y.) 
105. 

Diversion  of  Property.  In  a  proceeding  based  on  an  allega- 
tion that  the  pastor  and  certain  trustees  had  conspired  to- 
gether to  change  the  ecclesiastical  denomination  of  the  so- 
ciety', and  divert  its  temporalities  from  the  religious  de- 
nomination with  which  it  was  connected,  to  another,  it  was 
held  that  under  the  act  of  1875,  chap.  70,  the  trustees  were 
charged  with  the  care  of  the  temporalities  of  the  corjiora- 
tion  and  prohibited  from  diverting  such  temporalities  to  any 
other  use.  It  was  also  held  that  one  member  of  the  soCietj' 
could  maintain  a  proceeding  against  the  trustees  to  procure 
an  injunction  restraining  them  from  diverting  the  property. 
First  Keformed  Presbyterian  Church  v  Bowden,  14  Abl). 
N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  350. 

"A  grant  of  land  was  made  in  1781)  to  the  trustees  of  an 
evangelical  Lutheran  congregation,  consisting  of  two 
churches,  'for  the  conimon  use  and  benefit  of  the  said  Lu- 
theran congregation  forever.'  Prior  to  1800,  with  other  dona- 
tions, a  house  of  worship  was  erected  by  each  church,  and 
other   temitoralities   were   acquired.      Each   church   became 


TKUSTEES  811 

incorporated  under  the  j;eneral  statute.  At  (he  time  ol'  these 
eudownients  their  standard  of  laith  and  doctrine  was  the 
Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith.  In  18;>0  tliey  became  a  j)art 
of  the  Hartwick  Synod  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church. 
In  1837  the  trustees  of  the  two  churches,  in  connection  with 
the  pastor  and  the  church  councils,  dissolved  their  connec- 
tion with  the  Hartwick  Synod  and  united  with  other 
churches  in  forming  a  new  synod,  which  adopted  a  declara- 
tion of  faith,  essentially  variant  in  tliree  princii)les  and 
cardinal  doctrines,  from  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Held 
that  these  proceedings  of  the  trustees  were  a  ])erv(Msion  <>t 
their  trust,  and  an  unlawful  diversion  of  the  proi)erty  of  the 
churches  from  the  objects  and  pur])oses  for  which  it  was 
originally  contributed."  Kniskern  v  Lutheran  Church,  1 
Sandf.  c'h.  (N.  Y.)  439. 

Under  the  religious  cor])orations  act  of  New  York,  1813, 
as  modified  by  the  laws  of  IST."),  chaj).  70,  and  laws  of  187(>, 
chap.  176,  the  trustees  cannot  ])('niiit  the  use  of  tiic  ciiurili 
edifice  by  a  clergyman  \\lio  adojits  and  adxocates  religious 
views  at  variance;  with  the  articles  of  faitii  of  the  denomina- 
tion to  which  he  and  llie  trustees  belong;  and  the  adher- 
ents of  the  church  who  maintained  the  oi-iginal  faith  are 
entitled  to  an  injuncticni  restraining  such  use  of  the  ]»rop- 
erty.  Isham  v  Trustees  of  the  First  Tresbyterian  Chnich  of 
]>unkirk,  (i:*,  How.  I*r.  (N.  Y.)  4(15. 

Election.  If  the  rules  of  a  church  recpiire  its  trustees  to  be 
elected  on  a  ])articular  day  in  the  year,  after  nolici'  given 
on  the  ])receding  Sunday  by  the  j)astor,  a  bo;ird  of  trustees 
elected  on  a  <lill'erent  day,  without  the  notice,  are  not  trus- 
tees de  jure.  Trustees  de  facto  of  a  clinrcli  may  rightfully 
eject  from  the  church  persons  who  claim  to  be  its  trustees, 
and  who  have  taken  jtossession  of  il.  but  who  are  neither 
trustees  de  facto  noi-  de  jure,  and  are  mere  inlermeddlers 
with  its  temporalities.  First  African  Methodist  ilpiscopal 
Zion  Church  v  llillery,  HI  Cal.  IT)."). 

By  statute  the  trustees  were  divided  into  three  classes,  the 
seat  of  one  class  becoming  vacant  e\ery  year,  llms  recpiiring 


S1L>  Tin;  (IN  IL    LAW   AND   Till:  (  IK  iiCH 

Mil  niiiiiial  clcclidii  of  (iiic  lliiid  oC  ilic  imiiilici',  \\liifli  chjction 
Wiis  rciniircd  lo  Ix'  ;il  Iciisl  six  <l;iys  bcfon;  IIk;  vacancy 
sliouM  liii|»|i('ii.  II  was  IicM  that  an  clcclioii  on  I'iiixter 
^fonday  (Monday  at'tci-  Wliitsiiiidayj  in  ea<-h  year,  tlion;^h 
a  movable  lioly  day,  and  not  a  day  cei-tain,  was  valid. 

Differences  having  arisen  in  the  churcli,  the  trustees  closed 
the  dooi'S  of  the  cJuirch  edifice  ajjainst  the  minister  and  the 
congrej^ation.  The  minister  and  the  conj^rej^alion  having 
broken  into  the  church,  they  were  held  liable  for  indictment 
for  forcible  entry  and  detainer.  PcojjIc  v  Knnkle,  U  .lolms. 
(N.  Y.)  U7. 

Election,  Burden  of  Proof.  In  questions  involving  elections, 
the  burden  of  i>roof'  is  on  ])ersons  claiming  to  have  been 
elected.  African  Baptist  Church  v  White,  24  Ky.  Law  Rep. 
64G. 

Election,  Place.  When  the  usual  jdace  of  meeting  of  a 
society  has  been  changed  by  them,  an  election  of  trustees  at 
the  old  place  of  meeting  is  invalid.  Miller  v  lOnglish,  '2\ 
N.  J.  Law,  ?A1. 

Employment  of  Counsel.  In  Parshley  v  Third  Meth.  Church, 
147  N.  Y.  583,  plaintiff  brought  an  action  to  recover  for  legal 
services  as  counsel  in  ])rosecuting  charges  against  the  min- 
ister in  a  church  tribunal.  There  was  no  official  action  by 
the  trustees  for  the  plaintiff's  employment,  the  only  author- 
ity being  conferred  by  the  individual  suggestion  of  certain 
trustees,  and  there  was  no  evidence  of  a  ratiticatiou  by  the 
board.  The  plaintiff"  was  held  not  entitled  to  recover;  the 
court  ex])ressed  some  doubt  whether  the  board  of  trustees 
could  lawfully  em])]oy  counsel  to  take  proceedings  against 
a  minister  in  a  churcli  tribunal. 

Excluding  Minister  from  Church  Edifice.     See  Ministers. 

Forcible  Entry  and  Detainer.  A  majority  of  the  corpo- 
rators forcibly  expelled  the  trustees  from  the  church  edifice 
and  assumed  control  thereof.  It  was  held  that  the  trustees 
could  not  maintain  an  action  for  forcible  entry  and  detainer 
but  that  the  action  must  be  brought  in  the  name  of  the  cor- 
poration for  the  rea.sou  that  the  corporation  as  such,  and 


trustep:s  si:i 

iiul  llie  trustees,  held  I  lie  le«>al  title  to  the  properly.     Teoijle 
ex  rel  Fulton  v  Fulton,  1 1  X.  V.  94. 

Holding  Over.  Trustees  i-ej;ul;ivly  eleiMed  for  a  lixetl  period 
hold  their  ollices  until  i-emoved  by  others  beiny;  eleeted  in 
a  similar  manner;  but  sueh  remo\al  cannot  lake  place  iu  less 
than  one  year  alter  Iheir  election.  American  Triniitive 
Society  v  IMlling.  4  Zab.  (N.  J.)  (nh). 

Trustees  do  not  hold  over  where  successors  have  been 
actually  chosen.  altlion<;li  the  election  \\as  subsequently  de- 
clared invalid,  dudgment  of  ouster  in  such  case  creates  a 
vacancy  which  may  be  filled  by  a  new  election.  Peo2)le  ex  rel 
Cock  V  Fleming-.  .ID  Hun  (N.  Y.)  518;  13  N.  Y.  Supp.  715. 

Individual  Authority.  Trustees  of  a  religious  corporation 
organized  under  the  general  act  of  1813  as  amended  have 
no  sejtarate  or  individual  authority  to  bind  the  cor]>ora- 
tion,  notwithstanding  evidence  that  a  majority  agreed  as  t<» 
a  particulai*  transaction.  The  trustees  can  only  act  as  a 
body.    Peoi)le"s  Bank  v  St.  Anthony's  rhurch,  101)  N.  Y.  512. 

Individual  Liability.  Tru.stees  made  a  written  agreement 
with  a  contractor  for  the  completion  of  a  parsonage,  sign- 
ing the  contract  as  individuals,  and  not  as  trustees,  although 
tbey  were  described  in  the  i)aper  as  trustees.  Afterward 
the  contractor  made  another  agreement  with  the  trustees  as 
such,  which  agreement  was  signed  by  them  as  trustees.  The 
contractor  bi-onght  an  action  against  the  trustees  who  signed 
the  first  agreement,  seeking  to  recover  of  them  individually. 
It  was  held  that  their  individual  liability  liad  been  merged 
in  the  official  liability  by  reason  of  the  second  contract,  and 
that  an  action  could  not  be  maintained  against  theni  as  iiidi 
viduals.    McCJhee  v  L(>se,  22  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  371. 

A  minister  was  called  by  an  instrument  under  a  form 
])rescribed  by  the  lule  of  the  denomination  and  signed  by 
three  elders  and  one  trustee.  This  was  held  not  to  be  a  call 
by  the  officers  signing  it,  but  was  a  call  of  the  congregation, 
and  the  per.sons  signing  the  call  were  not  individmilly 
liable  for  the  minislei-'s  salai-y.  Paddock  v  Hrowii.  <">  Hill. 
(N.  Y.)  530. 


814  'I'lli;  ("l\  IL    LAW    AM>  Till:  (IHIMII 

Joint  Interest,  'rnislcrs  ;ir('  in  hiw  lint  ;i  sin^ilc  person, 
iiiid  :in  iiclion  ("innol  he  ni;iinl:iin<'(l  liy  clinrcli  lnist(^H 
a<;;iiiisl  :i  cotnistcc  I'oi"  li-cspiiss  lo  llic  j»r<)|»<'rty  lor  llic  rea- 
Koii  lh;it  ;is  ti-iislcc  he  li;is  the  same  iMtci-csl  :is  tlic  other 
trustees,  ;iihI  lie  cnnnid  he  hojii  phiintill'  ;in<l  (Icrciidjint. 
Trustees  ol'  :i  I'dij^ioiis  society  li;ive  possession  ;mm1  cnslody 
of  the  temporalities  of  the  church,  whethei-  i-ejil  or  personal 
estate,  and  are  the  proper  parties  to  l»rin«;  nii  action  foi-  an 
iujury  to  either.  A  trustee  allet^ed  to  he  a  ticspasser  could 
uot  be  sued  while  he  coiitiuued  in  oHice.  Trustees,  First 
Soeiety  of  the  Methodist  I'>j)iscopal  (  liuicli.  IMiltiu'v,  v 
Stewart,  27  Barb.  (N.  V.)  n."):;. 

Liability,  Property  Sold  to  Pastor.  The  trustees  of  a  chui-ch 
are  not  as  such  liable  for  the  price  of  lumber  sold  and  deliv- 
ered to  the  pastor  on  his  irulividual  account,  wlien  in  making; 
the  purcha.se  he  neither  acted  as  agent  of  the  trustees  nor 
had  authority  to  do  so,  and  this  is  so  though  the  hunber  \\  as 
with  their  knowle<lge,  used  in  im]>roving  tJie  property  of  tlie 
chur<h.    Montgonuu-y  v  AValton,  111  Ga.  840. 

Meeting,  Duty  to  Attend.  IVople  ex  rel  Kenney  v  Wijians, 
2J)  St.  l\e]>.  (N.  Y. )  (551.  A  writ  of  nmudanius  was  granted 
on  the  ai)plication  of  the  rector  to  compel  certain  vestrymen 
to  attend  a  meeting  of  the  vestry. 

Meeting  Necessary.  Trustees  cannot  bind  the  corporation 
except  by  action  at  a  meeting  at  which  a  quorum  is  present. 
Even  a  nuijority  of  the  trustees  cannot  legally  act  except  in 
this  formal  manner.  Ross  v  Crockett,  14  I^a.  Ann.  811  ;  see 
also  Thompson  v  ^^'est,  50  Xeb.  G77. 

The  trustees  of  a  religious  corporation,  organized  under 
the  incorporation  act  of  Illinois,  are  the  only  persons  em- 
powered to  bind  the  corjKirate  body  legally,  and  in  order 
to  do  this  the  trustees  must  meet  as  a  board  and  take  action 
as  su(  h.  The  sei)arate  and  individual  action  of  the  trustees, 
or  any  number  of  them,  without  holding  a  meeting  of  the 
board,  is  uot  binding  u])on  the  corporation,  and  cannot  of 
itself  create  a  corjKirate  liability.  First  Presbyterian 
Churcli,  Chicago  Heights  v  McColiy,  lL»(;  111.  App.  ;'.:'►:'.. 


TKrsTi:i:s  sir> 

Under  the  New  Voik  religious  corporations  ;ul  of  ISI:;, 
as  amended  in  ISij:},  trustees  have  no  separate  or  individual 
aulliority  to  bind  a  corjKU-aliou.  They  must  act  as  a  ImmIv. 
The  trustees  ot  a  corpoiatiou  ha\e  no  separate  or  indi\  idual 
authority  to  hind  the  corporation,  and  this  allliongli  the 
majority  or  the  whole  nund>er,  acting  singly  and  not  collec- 
tively as  a  board,  shoidd  assent  to  the  particular  transaction. 
People's  Bank  v  St.  Aulhony's  Koniaii  Catholic  Church,  10I> 
N.  Y.  512. 

The  trustees  of  a  religious  corporation  can  alone  bind  the 
corporate  body,  and  to  execute  this  |>o\\('r  they  ninsl  meet 
as  a  boar<l,  so  that  they  may  hear  each  other's  views,  d(dib- 
erate,  and  decide.  The  sej>arate  action  of  the  ti-uste<s  indi- 
vidually, without  meeting  and  consulting  together  as  a 
board,  even  though  a  niajoiity  in  number  should  agree 
upon  a  certain  act,  is  not  biiuling  ui)ou  the  corporation,  an<l 
does  not  and  cannot  of  itself  create  a  coi-|»oratt'  liability. 
Constant  v  St.  Albans  (Mi.  4  Daly  (X.  V.  I  :H)ry. 

Mingling  Charitable  and  other  Funds.  "If  the  ollicers  of  a 
religious  society  intermingle  funds  held  by  them  n]M»u  dis- 
tinct Irusts,  one  of  which  is  charitable,  and  am)ther.  al- 
though not  strictly  chai-itable.  is  in  the  nature  of  religious 
uses,  and  there  is  evidence  by  which  the  amount  (»f  e.icli  IiiihI 
can  be  appi'oximately  ascei'tained,  the  charily  will  not,  \'uy 
that  J-eason,  b<'  entitled  to  the  \\hole  amount  but  the  cnnii 
will  determine,  with  as  much  accuracy  as  p<»ssible,  the 
amount  now  justly  belonging  to  each  fund."  Attorney 
Cxeneral  v  Old  South  S(»ciety  in  IJoslon,  l.'l  Allen,  (Mass.) 
474. 

Minister's  Employment.  In  this  scKiety,  which  was  iude- 
])endent,  the  propeity  was  veste<l  in  trustees,  and  it  was 
held  that  the  enij)loyment  of  a  minister  ought  to  be  sanc- 
tioned by  them,  es]»ecially  where  it  ap|>eai('d  that  such 
employment,  though  ai)iu-oved  by  a  majority  of  the  ccmgre- 
gation,  might  destroy  the  peace  and  li.-nniony  <»f  the  church. 
(Jerman  Kef.  Ch    v  P>us(lie,  ."i  San<lf.  Sup.  Cl.  (K>(». 

Occupying  Property  After  Termination  of  Contract.     As  to 


sk;        thio  (M\il  law  and  tiii:  ('IIckcii 

\\w  ri^lit  of  a  iiiiiiisfcr  to  occujiy  flni  cliurrh  cililicc  al'tci-  liis 
contract  with  the  society,  see  Conway  v  Carpenter,  80  llun. 
(N.  Y. )  421),  where  it  was  held  that  after  sucli  a  termina- 
tion of  the  contract,  even  if  unlawful,  the  minister  ha<l  no 
ri<j;ht  to  continue  to  occupy  the  pro[)erty.  He  might,  acconl- 
in<;  to  circumstances,  liave  a  rifjht  of  a<tion  against  the 
society  for  unlawfully  excluding  him  from  the  j)ul|»it. 

Official  Term.  At  the  tinie  of  the  incorporation  of  the 
soiicly  the  term  of  office  of  trustees,  as  fixed  by  tlie  Gen- 
eral Conference,  was  unlimited,  but  the  General  Conference 
of  18G4  limited  the  term  of  office  to  one  year.  It  was  held 
that  a  trustee  elected  in  1Sr;2  could  not  hold  oHice  perma- 
nently, but  his  otiice  became  subject  to  the  limitation  im]>osed 
by  the  General  Conference  in  1864,  and  he  was  therefore 
entitled  to  liold  only  one  year  unless  reelected.  Currier  v 
Trinity  Society,  M.  K.  Church,  Charlestown,  1()1>  Mass.  H;.5. 

Official  Title  Must  Be  Shown.  Trustees  must  show  title  to 
office  in  action  relating  to  church  property.  Antones  et  al 
V  Eslava's  Heirs,  U  Port.  (Ala.)  527. 

Ouster,  Effect.  A  vacancy  is  created  by  a  judgment  ousting 
certain  trustees  illegally  declared  to  have  been  elected.  New 
elections  may  be  ordered  to  till  the  vacancy.  People  ex  rel 
Cock  v  Fleming,  59  Hnn  (  X.  Y.  i  518,  13  N.  Y.  Supp.  715. 

Possession  of  Property.  The  trustees  held  the  church  prop- 
erty in  trust  for  the  church  and  congregation  and  it  is  their 
possession  ;  and  the  courts  are  bound  to  protect  them  against 
every  irregular  and  unlawful  intrusion  made  against  their 
will,  whether  by  members  of  the  congregation  or  by  strang- 
ers.   People  V  Runkle,  0  John.  (  N.  Y.)  147. 

Trustees  of  a  religious  society  organized  under  the  act  of 
1813,  chap.  (JO,  sec.  3,  were  held  to  be  vested  with  the  custo<ly, 
possession,  management,  and  legal  control  of  the  property 
and  temporalities  belonging  to  their  particular  societs',  in 
the  same  manner  and  to  the  same  eflect  as  the  directors  of 
private  corporations  are  entitled  to  the  possession  and  con- 
trol of  their  ]>roperty  ;  and  such  trustees  may  sue  in  the  name 
of  the  corjtoration  and  to  recover  possession  of  the  property 


TKUSTICES  817 

from  wliuh  they  were  evicted  by  persons  tlaiining  to  be  ii 
majority  of  the  corixirators.  Tlie  trustees  are  tiie  legal 
rei)resentatives  of  the  corporation  and  the  individual  cor- 
porators liave  no  control  over  its  1em]>oralities  except  to 
vote  at  the  election  of  the  trustees.  The  corporators  cannot 
take  possession  of  the  property  and  control  it  as  against  the 
trustees.  The  cor]>orators  who  took  i>ossession  of  the  prop- 
erty in  defiance  of  the  trustees  were  trespassers.  An  eviction 
of  the  trustees  was  in  legal  eftect  an  eviction  of  the  corpora- 
tion. First  M.  E.  Church  in  Attica  v  Filkins,  3  T.  &  C. 
(N.  Y.)  279.  See  also  IVople  ex  rel  Fulton  v  Fulton,  ]1 
N.  Y.  94. 

Powers,  Georgia  Rule.  In  Georgia,  it  was  held  that  trustees 
appointed  b}'  the  superior  court  have  priuui  facie  a  right  to 
represent  the  trust  committed  to  them,  and  to  protect  it  from 
an  improper  and  illegal  diversion  by  others.  Bates  v 
Houston,  (U)  Ga.  198. 

Powers,  Maine  Rule.  In  Maine,  trustees  of  Methodist  Epis- 
copal churches  hold  pioperty  in  trust  for  the  use  of  the 
society  or  church,  and  their  powers  and  duties  are  con- 
tinued to  their  successors.  The  title  to  property  is  in  those 
jiersons  who  are  trustees  for  the  time  being.  They  have  no 
authority  to  create  a  debt  for  materials  to  be  used  in  build- 
ing a  church  edifice,  and  an  action  cannot  be  maintained 
against  them  for  such  a  «lebt.  Hailey  v  Methodist  i^iiiscopal 
Ghurch,  FreeiK>rt,  71  Me.  4  72. 

Powers,  New  York  Rule.  Under  the  New  Voik  religions 
corporations  act  of  18i:>  "the  relation  of  the  trustees  to  the 
society  is  not  that  of  a  i)rivate  trustee  to  the  beneficiaries  of 
the  trust,  but  they  are  the  managing  oflicers  of  the  corpora- 
tion, and  trustees  in  the  same  sense  in  which  the  j)resident 
and  directors  of  a  bank  or  railroad  com])auy  are  trustees, 
and  are  invested,  in  regard  to  the  temporal  afiairs  of  the 
society,  with  the  i)owers  sjjecilically  conferred  by  the  sta- 
tute, and  with  the  ordinary  discretionary  po\Aers  of  similar 
corporate  oflicers.  Gram  v  Prussia  Emigrjited  Evangelical 
].,utheriin  Geiinan  Societv,  .".(i  \.  V.  1<)1. 


SIS  TIM':  ('l\ll.   LAW  AND  Till;  ClK  JICII 

Powers,  Pennsylvania  Rule.  A  climrli  ciiniiol  Im*  Itoiiiid  by 
tlic  action  of  I  lie  liustccs  Ik'voikI  (lie  express  poweis  j^raiited 
by  the  iiiemheis.     Miller  v  Clinicli,   1   I'liila.  (I'a.i  4S. 

Presumption  of  Official  Title.  I'eisons  who  are  in  the  ojjen 
and  jteaeeahle  exercise  ol"  the  j)o\ver.s  and  duties  of  oHicers  in 
a  corporation  are  ])resiimed  to  have  been  duly  elected,  and 
to  be  entitled  to  the  position  they  occupy.  StianpM-s  cannot 
be  jiei-initted  to  c«nitest  their  title,  or  to  iiM])each  the  validity 
of  their  acts  by  assigning  irregulaiities  in  their  eleciion.  or 
in  any  of  the  antecedent  pi'oce«Mlings  of  the  corpo)  at  ion. 
Keformed  ^lethodist  Society,  Douglas  v  l)i-ai)er,  !)T  Mass. 
341). 

Promissory  Note.  Where  the  business  of  a  church  cor])ora- 
tioii  is  required  by  the  articles  of  incorporation  to  be  con- 
ducted by  its  officers  as  a  board  of  trustees,  the  president 
and  secretary  have  no  power  to  execute  a  note  binding  upon 
the  cor])oratioii  without  authority  from  such  board.  Au- 
thority conferred  by  the  trustees  to  erect  a  church  building, 
however,  would  carry  with  it  the  power  to  contract  debts 
necessary  for  that  purpose,  and  notes  executed  therefor 
would  be  valid.  Cattron  v  First  Universalist  Society,  Man- 
chester, 40  la.  106. 

The  defendants  gave  a  proniis.sory  note  for  labor  per- 
formed in  the  erection  of  a  parsonage.  The  note  was  signed 
by  the  defendants  as  trustees.  They  were  held  to  be  agents  of 
the  society  and  personally  liable.    Chick  v  Trevett,  '20  ]\Ie.  4(52. 

The  trustees  of  the  society  gave  their  i»roniissory  note  for 
money  borrowed,  to  be  used  in  the  erection  of  a  church  edi- 
fice. The  note  was  signed  by  them  as  trustees  of  the  society. 
It  was  held  that  the  note  became  their  individual  obligation 
and  judgment  was  rendered  accordingly.  Parol  evidence 
was  inadmissible  to  ex})lain  the  character  and  purpose  of 
the  note,  and  to  show  that  it  was  understood  to  be  an  obli- 
gation against  the  church.  Hayes,  et  al,  v  Brubaker,  (55 
lud.  27. 

Five  trustees  of  the  society  made  a  promissory  note,  each 
person  signing  it  as  trustee.     This  was  held  to  be  the  act  of 


TRUSTEES  SI  I) 

the  society.  TIk'  Irnstccs  arc  llic  corpoi-ali'  body,  and  iliey 
alone  can  act  lor  and  hind  (lie  soricty  hy  Ilic  assniiii'd  name. 
Little  V  Bailey,  87  111.  SM). 

Where  one  of  the  trnstees  negotiated  a  loan  tor  ihc  society, 
and  he  and  another  trnstee  signed  a  promissory  n<»ic  in 
which  the  trustees  were  described  as  snch,  and  in  which  they 
assumed  to  j;ive  the  note  for  and  on  behalf  of  the  chui-ch, 
aud  the  note  was  afterward  signed  by  the  other  trustees,  but 
witlunit  any  action  by  the  board  either  authoi-i/>ing  the  loan 
or  the  giving  of  the  note,  it  was  held  that  the  society  was 
not  liable,  but  that  the  holder  might  recover  against  the 
trustees  indi\  idnally.     Dennison  v  Austin,  15  Wis.  ;}:U. 

A  pastor's  wife  brought  an  action  on  a  note  for  the  balance 
due  him  on  salary.  The  note  had  been  given  by  the  trustees. 
There  was  some  (piestion  relative  to  the  authority  to  give 
the  note  and  whetiier  it  had  received  the  sanction  of  the 
society  by  a  ])ro]>er  resolution.  The  judgment  for  the 
plaintilf  was  athrmed  on  ajtpeal.  (Jladstone  Baptist  (Mmrch 
V  Scott,  1*5  Ky.  Law  Hep.  1*37. 

The  trustees  gave  a  promissory  note,  describing  them- 
selves in  it  as  trustees  of  the  society,  and  signing  it  in  the 
same  manner.  This  was  held  to  be  the  note  of  the  corpora- 
tion, and  the  makers  were  not  individually  liable.  New 
Market  Savings  Baidc  v  (lillet,  KM)  111.  2."4. 

An  incorjjorated  church  may  delegate  to  their  vestry  and 
wardens  the  i)ower  of  transferring  a  note  by  indorsement, 
(larvey  v  (N>lcock.  1   Nott  \:  Mr(\  (  S.  Car.  I   KIS. 

Property,  Trustees  Cannot  Distribute.  The  trustees  have  no 
autlioi'ity  to  <listiil>nte  the  |)i<»|>erty  of  the  siK-iety  among  its 
individual  members  oj-  any  class  of  them,  nor  can  this  authoi'- 
ity  be  conferred  by  the  county  court  by  an  order  directing  a 
sale  of  the  church  pro])eity.    W'heaton  v  (Jates,  18  N.  Y.  31)5. 

Quorum.  Under  the  New  York  religious  coi-porations  act 
the  jirovision  recjuiring  a  majority  of  the  vestrymen  was  held 
to  contem])late  a  nmjority  of  the  legal  innnher.  and  not 
mei'ely  of  a  less  nund»er  actually  in  othce.  Moore  v  Rector, 
St.  Thomas,  4  Abb.  N.  U.  (N.  V.)  51. 


.SIM)        Tin-:  CI  NIL  i.ANV  AM)  riii:  rm  imii 

Quo  Warranto.  Tlic  title  of  ii\;il  clniiiKiiits  t(i  tin*  <»llic(» 
of  tniHtec  of  a  roli^ioiiH  corporation  (aiiiKtt  \u'  (Ictonnined 
ill  an  cqnitablo  action  hronj^ht  by  one  claimant  or  Het  of 
claimants  aj^ainst  another  clainuiut  or  set  of  claimants.  The 
remedy  is  by  an  action  brought  by  the  attorney -general  in 
the  name  of  the  i)eoi)le.    Keis  v  Rolule,  .*U  Hun   i  N.  V.)  161. 

The  title  as  corporators  of  trustees  <](!  facto  ol  an  incor- 
porated religions  society  cannot  be  imjieached  in  a  collateral 
proceeding  by  showing  that  they  are  not  trustees  de  jui-e. 
This  can  be  done  only  in  a  direct  jiroceeding  by  information 
in  the  nature  of  quo  warranto.  First  rresbyterian  Society, 
Gallipolis  v  Sniithers,  12  Ohio  St.  248. 

This  was  held  the  pr()]»er  remedy  to  test  the  title  to  office 
of  trustees  of  a  religious  society.  Commonwealth  ex  rel 
Gordon  v  Graham,  64  Pa.  St.  339. 

The  title  to  office  of  a  rival  trustee  of  a  religious  corpora- 
tion cannot  be  tried  in  an  action  of  ejectment.  Such  a  ques- 
tion can  be  determined  only  in  an  action  of  quo  warranto 
brought  by  the  attorney-general.  Concord  Society,  Strykers- 
ville  V  Stanton,  38  Hun  (N.  Y.)   1. 

It  is  the  settled  law  of  this  country  that  an  information  in 
the  nature  of  a  quo  warranto  will  lie  against  one  who 
intrudes  himself  into  the  office  of  trustee  of  a  church  cor- 
poration.   Lawson  v  Kolbenson,  01  111.  405. 

Religious  Services.  "The  trustees  of  all  religious  societies 
hold  the  i)roperty  subject  to  its  appropriate  use,  and 
have  no  legal  right  to  determine  when  the  religions  meet- 
ings shall  be  held,  or  who  shall  officiate,  unless  sncli  jjower 
is  given  to  them  by  the  rules  and  discipline  of  the  denomi- 
nation to  which  they  belong,  and  they  may  be  com- 
pelled by  proi)er  i)roceedings  at  law,  or  in  equity,  to  fulfill 
their  duty."  American  Primitive  Society  v  Pilling,  4  Zab. 
(N.  J.)  ()53. 

Removal.  Trustees  are  not  necessarily  communing  mem- 
bers of  the  church.  Excommunication  from  communing 
mend)ers  does  not  disqualify  them,  even  if  the  excision  be 
regular.     They  cannot  be  removed   from  their   trusteeship 


TRUSTEES  821 

by  a  iJiiuoi'ity  of  ihc  (liiirtli  sucK'ty  or  iiiet.4iiig,  uillmut 
Wiii'uiug,  iiTid  artiiig  willioiU  cliarges,  witliout  citalioii  <»i- 
trial,  and  in  direct  contravention  of  the  church  rules.  Jioul 
din  V  Alexander,  15  Wall.  131   (U.  S.)   131. 

An  action  bj'  an  individual  member  ol  the  society  lor  the 
removal  of  an  alleged  faithless  trustee  was  sustained.    Nash 

V  Sutton,  117  N.  Car.  231. 

Representative  Character,  Cannot  Act  in  Two  Capacities. 
An  attempt  to  consolidate  this  society  \\ith  a  Wesley  an 
society  to  be  organized  for  the  sole  purpose  of  consolidation 
and  take  proi)erty  of  the  original  society  was  held  invalid. 
It  appeared  that  a  majority  of  the  board  of  trustees  of  the 
original  society  were  also  a  majority  of  the  proposed  new 
Wesleyan  society,  and  it  was  held  that  a  consolidation  could 
not  be  effected.  By  the  joint  action  of  such  majorities  such 
trustees  could  not  act  in  two  capacities;  the  Court  Street 
church  and  its  proi)erty  could  not  in  this  manner  be  trans- 
ferred to  a  society  belonging  to  another  denomination,  which 
society  was  proposed  to  be  organized  for  the  sole  purpose 
of  such  consolidation  and  transfer.    Matter  of  M.  E.  Society 

V  Perry,  51  Hun  (N.  Y. )  10-1. 

Representative  Character.  The  trustees  of  an  incorporated 
religious  society  can  alone  bind  the  corporation.  The  action 
of  the  vestry  has  no  such  force.  Where  the  act  relied  upon 
was  adoi)ted  at  a  meeting  of  the  conference  or  council, 
which  consisted  of  the  minister,  elders,  deacons,  and  Irus 
tees,  convened  in  mass,  the  corporation  was  not  bouml,  al- 
though a  majoritj'  of  the  trustees  were  i)resent.  A\  here  tli<' 
exercise  of  corporate  acts  is  vested  in  a  select  body,  an  art 
done  bj'  the  persons  conji)osing  that  body  in  a  mass  meeting 
of  all  the  corporators,  or  in  union  or  amalgamated  \\\l\\ 
other  like  bo<lies,  parts  of  the  congregation,  is  noi  a  valid 
corporate  act.  Cammeyer  v  United  (lermaii  lailluran 
Churches,  New  York,  2  Sandf.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  20S. 

The  trustees  hold  the  i)roperty  in  trust  lor  the  l)ene- 
ficiaries,  consisting  of  pewholders,  contributors,  and  other 
]>ersons  directly  connected  with  the  society.     Such  persons 


S2l.»  Tlir:  <'I\'IL   LAW  AND  TIFi:  cm   IMII 

are  (Mil  il  led  lo  llic  use  in  (-oiiiinon  of  llic  cImmcIi  cfljiicc  loi- 
Worsliip  n\\(\  lo  llic  IxMiclil  of  the  rcNciiiK'S  of  llic  cliiil-ili  to 
:ii(l  in  llic  siippoi'l  of  llic  jMihlic  worship  in  tlic  clinrch  cdi- 
lite.  Tlic.v,  and  llicy  alone,  have  a  personal  pecuniary  inter- 
est in  the  <hui<h  property.  Everett  v  First  rresbyterian 
CMmrch,  5:5  N.  .1.  lOq.  500. 

The  trustees  of  a  relij;ious  .society  are  mere  agents  to  give 
effect  to  the  will  of  the  corporators,  or  a  majority  of  them, 
as  to  all  matters  within  the  sco]>e  of  the  coi-))oi-atioii.  Kuliii- 
ski  V  Dambrowski,  2i)  Wis.  10!). 

Trustees  alone  can  represent  the  society  in  making  con- 
tracts, and  from  it  alone  they  receive  their  instructions 
which  are  not  exi)resse(l  in  their  charter.  A  meeting  of  the 
church  members,  as  such,  is  not  a  meeting  of  the  incorpo- 
rated society,  and  it  cannot  instruct  the  trustees  in  their 
duties  or  assume  any  power  over  them.  The  court  granted 
an  application  by  the  trustees  for  an  injunction  restraining 
certain  members  of  the  church  from  interfering  with  the 
possession  of  the  church  property  by  the  trustees.  Baptist 
Congregation  v  Scannel,  3  Grant's  Cas.  (Pa.)  48. 

Roman  Catholic,  How  Chosen.  Under  a  statute  authorizing 
the  incorporation  of  a  Koman  Catholic  congregation  it  was 
held  that  the  provision  in  the  statute  for  the  selection  of 
two  lay  members  by  a  committee  of  the  congregation  was 
mandatory,  and  that  persons  chosen  by  the  congregation 
without  a  committee  were  not  entitled  to  hold  the  office. 
Stale  V  Cetty.  <>!)  Conn.  I'SC. 

Seating,  Power  to  Regulate.  In  Sheldon  v  Vail,  28  Hun 
(N.  Y. )  :*54,  it  was  held  that  the  trustees  of  a  free  church 
might  regulate  the  seating  and  forcibly  remove  from  a  seat 
a  person  who  had  been  asked  to  take  another  place. 

Status.  The  otfice  of  trustee  does  not  confer  on  the  incum- 
bent any  legal  interest  in  the  property  of  the  corporation, 
or  impose  on  him  any  personal  liability  for  its  debts  or 
as.sessments ;  therefore  a  commissioner  ai>pointed  to  deter- 
mine the  damages  to  land  taken  for  a  street  was  not  disquali- 
fied because  he  was  a  trustee  of  a  religious  cor])oration  own- 


TRUSTEES  SL':; 

ing  premises  liable  to  assessments  lor  beiielits.  IN'opJc  v 
Mayor,  (irj  N.  Y.  2U\. 

These  otHcers  are  Inistees  in  the  same  sense  with  the  presi- 
dent and  directors  of  a  hank,  or  of  a  railroad  coiupany.  They 
are  the  ofiieers  of  the  eorporation  t<j  whom  is  dclej^ated  the 
power  of  nianaj>inji  its  concerns  for  the  connnon  henelit  of 
themselves  and  all  other  cor[)orators ;  and  over  whom  the 
body  corporate  retains  control,  through  its  power  to  super- 
sede them  at  every  recurring  election.  Robertson  v  Bullions, 
11  N.  Y.  243. 

Statute  of  Limitations  Cannot  Be  Waived.  Trustees  of  a 
religious  cori)()ration  should  not  be  permitted  to  allow 
claims  against  the  corjjoration  which  are  barred  by  the  stat- 
ute of  limitations.  Matter  of  Orthodox  Congregational 
Church,  Union  Village,  0  Abb.  N.  C.  (N.  Y.)  398. 

Temporalities.  Trustees  have  control  of  the  temporalities 
belonging  to  the  church.    Bristor  v  Burr,  ]20  N.  Y.  427. 

Title  to  Office.  Ti-ustees  were  elected  at  a  time  other  than 
that  fixed  by  the  custom  of  the  church,  and  without  the  usual 
notice.  The  election  did  not  make  the  persons  chosen  trus- 
tees de  jure.  x\n  entrance  into  the  church  by  persons  thus 
irregularly  chosen  was  held  not  to  affect  the  rights  of  the 
existing  trustees  who  held  office  under  previous  elections, 
and  were  entitle<l  to  the  possession  of  the  church  ])roperty. 
First  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Zion  Chnrch  v  llillery, 
51  Cal.  155. 

Title  to  Office,  Necessary  to  Maintain  Action.  I'ersons 
claiming  to  be  tinstees  of  a  religious  society,  but  who  have 
not  been  admitted  to  the  office  or  exercised  any  functions 
thereof,  cannot  maintain  an  action  in  the  nanu;  of  the  society 
to  restrain  individuals,  in  jiossession  and  claiming  to  be 
trustees  of  the  society  duly  elected,  from  closing  the  church 
edifice  and  from  j)reventing  the  j)astor  from  holding  ivli- 
gious  meetings  therein,  etc.  Ulaintitls  must  lirst  establish 
their  title  to  the  oHice,  and  this  question  caiiiiot  be  deter- 
mined on  a  motion  for  an  inj\inction.  North  i'>a|)tist  Ch.  v 
Parker  ami  others,  :'.(;  liarb.  (  N.  V.  i   171. 


TRUSTS 

Advowson,  825. 

Archbishop,  moral  trust,  825. 

Auburn  Thoolof^iral  Seminary,  826. 

Beneficiary,  how  determined,  826. 

Bi.shop,  826 

Cemeteries,  827. 

Charitable,  defined,  827. 

Church,  incapacity,  827. 

Christnuus  presents,  827. 

Church  library,  Sunday  school,  828. 

Corporate  cajiacity,  828. 

Court  to  administer,  828. 

Dedication  of  land  for  religious  purposes,  829. 

Denominational  limitation,  829. 

Denominational  use,  830. 

Discretion  of  trustees,  830. 

Diversion,  830. 

Donor's  intention,  831. 

Equity  jurisdiction,  831. 

Foreign,  unincorporated  society,  832. 

Funds,  how  applied,  832. 

Home  for  aged  persons,  833. 

Implied  from  bequest  or  conveyance,  833. 

Indefiniteness,  833. 

Legislature  cannot  modify,  834. 

Legislative  power,  834. 

Limitation,  834. 

Marine  Bible  Society,  835. 

Missions,  835. 

Object,  how  ascertained,  835. 

Other  State.s,  836. 

Parol,  when  insufficient,  836. 

Parsonage,  837. 

Philips  Academy  Divinity  School,  837. 

Poor  Jewish  families,  837. 

Poor  ministers,  837. 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  838. 

Religious  services,  838. 

824 


TRUSTS  825 

Sectarian  purpose,  839. 

Sunday  school,  840. 

Suspending  power  of  alienation,  840. 

Title,  840. 

Unincorporated  society,  840. 

Universalist  Church,  842. 

Worship,  usage,  how  determined,  842. 

Advowson.  A  testator  gave  so  niuch  of  his  residuaiy  per 
sonal  estate  as  should  be  applicable  to  charitable  purpose.^ 
to  trustees  upon  trust  "to  invest  the  same,  apply  the  income, 
or  any  portion  of  the  capital,  in  grants  for  or  toward  the 
purchase  of  advowsons  or  presentations  or  in  erecting  or 
contributing  to  the  erection,  improvement,  or  endowment 
of  churches,  chai)els,  or  schools,  or  in  paying,  or  contribut- 
ing to  the  salaries  or  income  of  rectors,  vicars  or  incumbents, 
masters  or  teachers,  but  upon  the  following  conditions." 
The  specified  conditions  were  in  effect  that  no  churches, 
schools,  clergy  or  teachers  should  receive  any  benefit  unless 
they  belonged  to  the  Evangelical  party  in  the  Church  of 
England.  None  of  the  conditions  applied  in  terms  to  the 
purchase  of  advowsons  or  presentations,  and  the  will  did 
not  create  a  charitable  trust  as  to  the  advowsons.  and  there 
being  no  apportionment,  the  whole  bequest  failed,  and  tiiere 
was  an  intestacy.  Hunter  v  Attorney  General,  SO  Law 
Times  Kep.  X.  S.  (Eng.)  732. 

Archbishop,  Moral  Trust.  Testator  gave  the  residue  of  his 
estate  to  St.  Teresa's  Church,  and  also  to  St.  Joseph's  House 
for  Homeless  Industrious  Boys,  with  a  jjroviso  that  if  he 
died  within  tliirty  days  after  making  the  will,  then  the 
residue  should  go  to  Archbishop  1*.  J.  Kjan,  of  Philadelphia, 
absolutely.  The  testator  died  witliin  thirty  days  after  mak- 
ing the  will.  The  arclibishoit  test i lied  that  he  did  not  know 
testator,  and  had  not  heard  of  him.  It  was  held  that  the 
property  became  the  absolute  ])roperty  of  the  arclibishop, 
but  he  acknowledged  his  oblig;ili«»n  to  administer  it  accord- 
ing to  the  testator's  intention,  and  for  the  advancement  of 
religious  and  charitable  interests.     It   was  not  legal) v  im- 


82(1        Till-:  ('i\'ii.  LAW  AND  Tni:  ciirKcn 

j)ivsse<l  wilii  i\  Inisl,  hut  IImtc  wiis  :i  iiini-nl  Inist  wliicli  th(* 
urchbisliop  i-ccoj^iiized  and  declan'd  liis  intcntioii  to  obHcrve. 
It  was  held  lliat  the  arcldiisliop  was  cut il led  t(»  tlic  ])r<>\)(tr\y. 
Flood  V  Kyaii,  L'L'O  |»a.  450. 

Auburn  Theological  Seminary.  I'rcvious  to  tlic  Revised 
Statutes  a  peciiiiiary  le<i;a(y  to  a  (•orj)oratioii,  i)ayal»le  out  of 
the  proceeds  of  real  estate,  which  the  executors  were  directed 
to  sell,  was  valid,  althouj»;h  the  corporation  was  wot  author- 
ized by  its  charter  to  take  i-eal  estate  by  <levise.  Auburn 
Theolooieal  Seminary  v  (Miilds,  4  I'ai«re  (Mi.  CS.  Y.)  411>. 

Beneficiary,  How  Determined.  If  a  deed  is  made  to  thi*eo 
named  persons  as  trustees  for  "The  Christian  Church,"  a 
court  of  equity  should  enforce  the  trust  in  favor  of  ''the 
Church  of  Christ,"  where  it  is  shown  that  the  Church  of 
Christ  was  legally  incorporated,  and  that  the  persons  named 
as  trustees  in  the  deed  were  in  fact  the  trustees  of  the  Church 
of  Christ,  and  there  was  no  i)roof  that  there  was  any  lejjally 
organized  or  any  unorganized  religious  society,  or  church 
having  the  name  "The  Christian  Church"  at  the  time  the  deed 
was  made,  nor  one  thereafter  legally  organized.  Church  of 
Christ  v  Christian  Church,  Hammond,  103  111.  144. 

Bishop.  A  conveyance  to  a  bishop  and  his  successors  of  a 
lot  on  which  there  was  a  church,  and"  in  which  church  the 
grantor  had  a  technical  fee,  and  for  which  conveyance  he 
received  a  valuable  consideration,  with  the  provision  that 
the  property  should  be  forever  for  the  use  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  at  Old  Town,  Maine,  was  held  not  to  con- 
tain a  condition  which  could  be  the  basis  of  a  forfeiture,  but 
that  the  i)roperty  was  received  by  the  bishop  in  trust  for  the 
benefit  of  the  local  parish.    Neely  v  Hoskins,  84  Me.  88«J. 

A  trust  conferred  upon  a  bishop  or  other  ecclesiastical 
functionary,  so  far  as  concerns  title  and  ownershij)  of  land, 
is  in  itself  not  ditferent  from  a  trust  vested  in  any  other 
natural  person.  The  death  of  a  bishop  who  simply  holds 
lands  in  trust,  like  that  of  any  other  individual  who  occui)ies 
the  position  of  a  trustee,  vests  the  trust  in  the  courts.  If  a 
successor  in  the  trust  is  desired,  ap]ieal  must  be  made  to  the 


TRUSTS  827 

pi'Oi)ei'  court  for  his  ai)poiiitineiit.  This  is  so  whether  Ihe 
individual  be  an  ecclesiastical  functionary  of  the  highest 
rank  or  a  layman  of  the  humblest  degree.  Dwenger  v  Geary, 
IVi  hid.  io<;. 

Cemeteries.  A  snm  of  money  was  bequeathed  to  ecclesias- 
tical societies  to  be  Invested  as  a  perjjetual  hind,  tlie  annual 
income  thereof,  or  so  much  thereol  as  sliould  be  necessary, 
to  be  applied  in  keeping  in  good  order  certain  burial  lots, 
and  the  remainder  of  the  income,  if  any.  api)lied  to  the  main- 
tenance of  the  religious  services  of  the  societies.  It  vas  held 
that  a  bequest  for  keeping  burial  lots  or  cemeteries  in  good 
order  or  repair  was  not  given  in  charity,  and,  therefore, 
was  not  protected  by  the  statute  of  charitable  u.ses.  Coit 
V  Comstock,  51  Conn.  352. 

Charitable,  Defined.  Charitable  trusts  include  all  gifts  in 
trust  for  religious  and  educational  purposes  in  their  ever- 
varying  diversity;  all  gifts  for  the  relief  and  comfort  of  the 
poor,  the  sick  and  the  alflicted,  and  all  gifts  for  the  public 
convenience,  benefit,  utility  or  ornament,  in  whatever 
manner  the  donors  desire  to  have  them  applied.  Carter  v 
Whitcomb,  74  N.  H.  482. 

Church,  Incapacity.  A  trust  created  by  the  rules  of  a 
church,  which  is  not  shown  capable  of  making  contracts, 
accepting  benefits,  or  compelling  performance,  is  not  recog- 
nized by  the  law.    Baxter  v  McDonnell,  155  N.  Y.  S3. 

Christmas  Presents.  Testator  bequeathed  to  the  Sunday 
school  of  this  society  a  fund  the  interest  of  which  was  to  be 
used  annually  in  making  Cliristmas  presents  to  the  members 
of  the  school.  It  does  not  aiti>ear  what  tlie  gifts  were  to  be; 
it  does  not  appear  that  they  are  even  to  be  rewards  of  merit, 
or  to  be  used  as  a  means  of  inducing  attendance  on  the  part 
of  scholars  at  the  school,  or  to  piomote  tlieir  good  com! net 
there,  or  of  inciting  them  to  attention  to  religious  instruc- 
tion given  to  them  there;  nor  whether  they  are  to  be  given 
to  all  the  scliohirs  or  j)art  only.  The  gift  is  in  trust,  and  it 
is  not  a  charity  in  the  legal  sense,  and  was  void,  (loodell  v 
Union  Association  of  the  Chihhen's  Home,  2!»  N.  .1.  l''<|.  •">2. 


828  Till-:  ('l\  II.   LAW  AM)    rili:  CHURCH 

Church  Library,  Sunday  School.  Testator  IxMiiicatlnMl  t<»  tlic 
clmrcli  ii  IuihI  wliich  was  to  Ix'  kcjil  invested  by  the  clinicli 
and  the  income  ]»ai(l  to  his  housekeeper  diii'in^  her  life,  l)Ut 
alter  her  death  the  income  was  to  he  used  for  the  imrchase 
of  a  church  library,  the  su|)]>ort  of  a  Sabbath  school  in  thcf 
chuT-ch.  and  for  otlier  churcli  jiniposes  as  mifjht  be  deter- 
mined  by  the  society.  It  was  held  that  the  corj)oration  could 
not  act  as  trustee  in  a  matter  in  whidi  it  had  no  interest, 
but  in  this  case  the  j»ower  of  the  corjtoration  to  take  the 
property  for  its  own  use  carried  with  it  as  an  incident  the 
duty  of  administering  the  trust  for  the  benefit  of  the  house- 
keeper.   Matter  of  ITowe,  1  Paige  (N.  Y.)  213. 

Corporate  Capacity.  When  the  powers  of  a  corporation 
are  not  defined  and  restricted  by  its  charter,  or  by  any 
general  law,  its  capacity  to  take,  hold,  and  dispose  of  real 
estate  is  precisely  the  same  as  that  of  a  natural  person,  and 
such  a  corporation  may  hold  lands  as  trustee.  Real  estate 
may  be  granted  to  any  religious  corporation,  in  trust,  for 
any  specific  use  or  pur])ose  comprehended  in  the  general 
object  of  its  incorporation.  Tucker  v  St.  Clement's  Church, 
New  York,  3  Sandf.  Sup.  Ct.  (N.  Y.)  242,  atf'd  8  N.  Y.  558  n. 

Court  to  Administer.  Testator  in  1850  made  a  w  ill,  devising 
certain  property  to  be  applied  to  the  education  of  poor  young 
men  of  Bedford  County,  that  may  be  deemed  by  the  court 
worth}-  and  intend  preparing  themselves  for  the  ministry, 
without  regard  to  religious  sect,  being  Christian  as  a  matter 
of  course.  Testator  died  in  1873,  and  his  heirs  contested  the 
validity  of  the  trust.  It  was  held  that  the  testator  intended 
to  vest  the  discretion  of  the  selection  in  the  court  of  conmion 
pleas,  and  Avhile  that  court  could  not  exercise  such  a  discre- 
tion either  by  itself,  or  a  trustee  of  its  ap{)ointment  at  the 
date  of  the  w'ill,  yet  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  testator  it 
had  acquired  that  capacity  by  virtue  of  the  act  of  2Gth  of 
Ai)ril,  1855,  which  empowers  said  courts  to  act  as  testa- 
mentary trustees.  Although  the  act  of  1855  is  prospective 
only,  and  the  court,  therefore,  had  no  power  to  act  as  trus- 
tee at  the  date  of  the  will,  the  testator  here  having  appointed 


TRUSTS  829 

the  court,  the  act  removed  this  disability,  and  made  it  com- 
peteut  to  administer  the  trust.  Mann  v  Mullin,  84  Pa.  St.  207. 

If  a  legacy  for  charitable  purposes  is  given  to  an  associa- 
tion which  is  incajiable  of  undertaking  tl\e  trust,  tliis  court 
will  appoint  a  trustee  to  receive  the  legacy  and  apply  it  to 
the  purpose  intended  by  the  testator.  In  this  case  a  legacy 
was  given  to  the  Bible  Society  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  but  that  Bible  Society  had  been  discontinued  before 
tlie  will  was  made.  The  total  fund  available  was  less  than 
this  legacy.  The  will  also  gave  a  legacy  to  the  American 
Bible  Society;  that  society  being  willing  to  undertake  the 
trust,  the  court  directed  the  payment  to  it  of  the  fund  in 
trust  that  the  society  should  expend  the  amount  received  in 
the  circulation  and  distribution  of  Bibles.  Bliss  v  American 
Bible  Society,  2  Allen  (Mass.)  3:54. 

Dedication  of  Land  for  Religious  Purposes.  Two  persons, 
owners  of  real  estate,  gave  it  to  two  religious  societies  for 
the  purpose  of  erecting  thereon  a  church  and  establishing  a 
burning  ground.  The  agreement  was  by  parol.  Members  of 
the  congregation  and  others  contributed  funds  with  which 
the  church  was  erected,  and  it  was  used  as  a  house  of  wor- 
ship by  both  congregations.  In  an  action  to  recover  posses- 
sion of  the  })roperty  brought  bj'  a  person  who  claimed  to 
derive  title  through  a  judgment  against  one  of  the  grantors, 
on  which  his  interest  had  been  sold,  it  was  held  that  the  per- 
sons who  made  the  dedication  and  the  successor  of  one  of 
them,  through  the  sheriff's  sale,  held  the  property  in  trust 
for  the  uses  originally  intended.  The  legal  elfect  of  the 
agreement  was  to  vest  the  equitable  title  in  the  original 
subscribers  to  the  fund  for  the  erection  of  a  liouse  <»r  wor 
ship,  and  also  in  tlieir  rejtresentatives  a)Ml  successois.  and 
it  was  a  dedication  for  a  valuable  consitleration  i<»  them. 
In  Pennsylvania,  religious  and  charitable  institutions  have 
always  been  favored  without  respect  to  forms.  Beaver  v 
Filson,  8  Pa.  St.  :V21. 

Denominational  Limitation.  Wiii'ic  a  (U'ed  of  lands  gave  to 
trustees  the  right  to  ;ii)point.  not  ;in  individual  coritoration 


830  THIO  (:!I\'I1.   I.AW  AM)  THi;  (III   K(|I 

or  society,  hul  soiiu*  ivli^^ioiis  ihMioiiiiiiiitioii  lo  cxiM-cisc  ccclc- 
siastical  control  over  llic  prcniiKes,  namely,  llic  occnicilioii 
for  rcli<;i<nis  services  on  SuiMhiys  ;in<]  Wednesday  evenings, 
the  ai»i»<)iiilnienl  of  it  desijjiialed  rcdigioiis  deiioniination 
necessarily  implies  a  limitation  of  snch  use  to  the  doctrines 
and  jMii'poses  of  tluit  denoniin.ilion.  An  appointnienl  of  a 
Primitive  Methodist  Clnii'cli  under  this  deed  was  snstiiined 
in  Cape  V  Plymouth  Congregation;!  1  (Iniicli,  i:!(l  Wis.  174. 

Denominational  Use.  T'nder  a  trnst  for  the  jMirchase  of  a 
lot  and  the  erection  of  a  chni'ch,  conditioned  that  the  Meth- 
odist P^piscopal  Church  should  have  the  right  to  occupy  the 
house  two  Sabbaths  each  month  and  other  religious  denom- 
inations the  other  Sabbaths,  the  Methodist  Church  may  law- 
fully transfer  its  interest  to  another  denomination  using  the 
same  ])i'o])erty.    Alexamler  v  Slavens,  7  B.  Mon.  (Ky.  i  :>51. 

Discretion  of  Trustees.  A  devise  for  the  "dis.semi nation  of 
the  gospel  at  home  and  abroad"  was  held  not  void  for  uncer- 
tainty. The  method  of  administering  the  trust,  and  the 
instrumentalities  to  be  used,  were  committed  to  the  discre- 
tion of  the  trustees.  Attorney-General  v  Wallace,  7  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)  Oil. 

Diversion.  A  change  in  the  ecclesiastical  relation  of  a 
church  for  whose  benefit  property  is  held  in  trust  does  not 
necessarily  involve  any  perversion  of  the  trust  or  diversion 
of  the  fund  from  its  legitimate  purpose.  Swedesborough 
Ch.  V  Shivers,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  453. 

"A  fund  created  by  a  religious  society  for  the  instruction 
and  education  of  children  in  the  faith  and  doctrines  of  the 
society  as  professed  at  the  time  of  the  creation  of  the  fund 
cannot  be  diverted  from  its  original  object  and  destination ; 
if  a  diversion  be  made  or  attempted,  a  court  of  equity  will 
interpose  and  correct  the  procedure."  In  such  case  the  ques- 
tion is  not  which  faith  or  doctrine  is  the  scnnnlest  or  most 
orthodox,  but  for  Mhat  object  or  purpose  was  the  fund  orig- 
inally established  by  the  founders  of  it.  The  court  \\ill  en- 
force the  trust,  but  will  not  seek  to  enforce  the  peculiar 
faith  and  doctriues.    Field  v  Field,  9  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  3M5. 


TRUSTS  8:11 

Where  a  trust  was  established  lor  the  i)iui)ose  of  erec-tin«^ 
i)  schoolhoiise  and  church,  and  maintaining  a  buryinj^ 
{ground,  the  society  designated  as  trustees  cannot  create  a 
new  use,  or  convey  the  estate  for  j>urj)oses  inconsistent  witli 
those  for  which  tliey  held  it,  and,  therefore,  a  grant  by  the 
trustees  to  another  religious  society  of  equal  rights  and 
privileges  to  the  property  was  held  invalid,  but  it  was  held 
that  this  diversion  of  the  property  might  be  ratified  by  the 
beneficiaries,  and  was  deemed  to  have  been  ratified  by  Arti- 
cles of  Association  between  the  original  society  and  the 
grantee  society,  by  which  it  was  agreed  that  the  i)ropei'ty 
should  be  used  and  enjoyed  by  the  two  societies  as  tenants 
in  common.    Brown  v  Lutheran  Church,  2.'>  Ta.  St.  495. 

Donor's  Intention.  The  donor's  intention  must  be  imjilic- 
itly  followed,  or  nothing  can  be  done.     Attorney  General 

V  Bishop  of  Oxford,  1  Bro.  C.  C.  (Eng.)  Uk  n. 

Equity  Jurisdiction.  It  is  the  duty  of  equity  tribunals  to 
give  effect  to  the  powers  of  the  trust  if  they  be  legal,  and  to 
that  end  they  must  ascertain  and  determine  its  scope  and 
object;  and  in  that  investigation  they  are  authori/.ed  to 
resort  to  the  early  hi.story  of  the  church,  as  contained  in 
standard  and  authentic  works  on  the  subject,  prior  in  date 
to  the  existence  of  the  pjirticular  controver.sy.     Ebbinghaus 

V  Killian,  1  Mackey  (Dis.  of  Col.)  247. 

If  i)roperty  is  dedicated  by  will  or  deed  of  the  donor  for 
the  express  jiurpose  of  l)eing  held  and  exclusively  u.sed  for 
the  teaching,  support,  or  maintenance  of  some  specific 
dogma,  or  creed  or  form  of  leligion,  and  that  purjtose  is 
declare<l  by  the  instnniient  under  which  tlie  ]»r()perty  is  held, 
a  trust  arises,  jind  ;i  court  of  e([ui(y  will  pre\tMit  a  perver- 
sion of  the  trust  attached  to  its  use.  So  long  as  there  are 
persons  or  agencies  witiiin  the  meaning  of  the  original  dedi- 
cation, and  willing  to  carry  out  the  uses  intended  to  be  main- 
tained by  the  donor,  a  court  of  equity  upon  their  application 
will  extend  its  aid  in  executing  the  trust.  Brundage  v  Dear- 
dorf,  1)2  Fed.  214,  atf'g  55  Fed.  839. 

The  dedication  of  a  meetinghouse  to  the  use  of  a  religious 


s:;l'        'imim  (M\  il  law  and  'I'iii:  cihijch 

society  cicjilcs  ;i  clKiiiliililc  Must,  t'liforccwMi;  in  ecjuity; 
it  11(1  wlicic  llu!  object  of  a  hill  is  to  Hecure  a  trust,  secure 
peace  and  enjoin  multiplied  invasions  of  sin  alleged  right, 
chancery  has  jurisdictiou  of  it.  Curd  v  Wallace,  7  Dana 
(Ky.)   190. 

In  Tennessee  the  rule  that  where  a  trust  is  created  for  a 
lawful  object,  definite  in  its  character,  and  vested  in  trus- 
tees, so  that  it  is  properly  cognizable  in  the  courts  of 
chancer}',  has  continued  in  existeiu-e  from  the  earliest  period 
and  is  still  in  force.  Dickson  v  M<jntgon»ery,  1  Swan 
(Teun.)  348,  sustaining  bequests  to  the  treasurer  of  Clarke 
and  lOrskine  College  in  trust  for  home  missions,  for  foreign 
missions,  and  also  for  the  education  of  ministers  under  the 
auspices  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South. 

When  the  devisee  is  indefinite  the  court  can  name  a 
trustee  to  administer  the  gift  as  a  trust.  Kingsbury  v 
Brandegee,  113  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  60G. 

If  the  object  of  the  trust  be  lawful,  and  suiRciently  specific 
and  definite  to  enable  the  court  to  execute  it,  it  Avill  never 
fail  for  want  of  a  trustee.  The  court  will  execute  the  trust. 
Attorney-General  v  Jolly,  1  Rich.  Eq.  (S.  C.)  99. 

In  Bowden  v  McLeod,  1  Kdw.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  588,  it  was  held 
that  the  court  of  chancery  had  complete  jurisdiction  of 
trusts  for  religious  ])urj)oses,  and  trustees  of  religious  soci- 
eties, and  will  interfere  in  any  abuse  of  the  trust  and  will 
compel  the  trustees  to  discharge  their  duties  fairly  with 
respect  to  the  property. 

Foreign,  Unincorporated  Society.  In  Washburn  v  Sewall, 
50  Mass.  280,  it  was  held  that  a  bequest  by  a  testatrix  resid- 
ing in  Massachusetts  to  the  Concord  Female  Charitable 
Society  located  in  Concord,  Xew  Hampshire,  was  valid 
although  the  society  was  not  incorporated  and  that  a  court 
of  equity  would  appoint  a  trustee  to  receive  the  bequest  in 
trust  for  such  charities  as  were  administered  by  such  society. 

Funds,  How  Applied.  Under  a  will  providing  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  free  church  and  the  maintenance  of  a  minister 
and  public  worship  therein,  with  authority  to  use  the  prin- 


TRUSTfci  833 

cipal  for  rebuilding  tbe  house  if  destroyed,  il  was  held  thai 
the  expenditure  of  a  portion  of  the  income  for  the  services 
of  a  sexton  and  for  fuel  was  not  a  !nisapitli(ati()ii  of  the 
trust  fund.  Attorney-General  v  Union  Society,  Worcester, 
116  Mass.  Kh. 

Home  for  Aged  Persons.  In  Odell  v  Odell,  10  AUen  i  Ma.ss.  i 
1  the  court  sustained  a  bequest  to  a  savings  bank  in  trust  to 
be  invested  by  the  bank,  the  interest  to  be  added  to  the  i)rin- 
cipal  semiannually  for  fifty  years.  At  the  end  of  that  time 
the  sum  which  shall  have  accumulated  shall  be  ajjpropriated 
by  a  society  of  ladies  from  all  the  Protestant  religious  so- 
cieties in  Salem,  to  provide  and  sustain  a  liome  for  respect- 
able, destitute,  and  aged  native-born  American  men  and 
women.  "The  above  annual  payment  shall  be  made  from  the 
income  of  my  real  estate,  which  real  estate  sliall  be  lield  in 
trust  by  my  executors  until  the  last  payment  .shall  have  been 
made  to  the  trustees  of  the  Salem  Savings  Bank ;  then  my 
real  estate  shall  be  divich'd  among  tlie  grandchihlren  of  my 
late  brother,"  etc.  The  bequest  was  valid,  even  if  the  direc- 
tion for  accumulation  was  invalid. 

Implied  from  Bequest  or  Conveyance.  A  conveyance  or  l)e- 
quest  to  a  religious  association,  oi-  to  trustees  for  that  asso- 
ciation, necessarily  implies  a  tiust.  Fuchs  v  Meisel,  liiLl 
Mich.  857. 

Indefiniteness.  "The  owner  of  jtroperty  may  do  as  he 
pleases  with  it,  provi<led  the  dis]>osition  be  not  to  unlawful 
jiurposes,  and  what  he  may  do  himself  he  may  <lo  by  agent 
while  living  or  by  executor  after  death."  In  this  case  testa- 
trix directed  her  executors  to  distribute  and  pay  the  residue 
of  her  estate  to  and  among  such  religions  charitable  and 
benevolent  pur])oses  and  objects  or  persons  or  institiiti<nis 
as  they,  in  their  discict  ion,  might  deem  best  and  i»ro])er.  The 
will  created  a  valid  trust  which  was  not  voi«l  for  uncertainty 
or  indefiniteness.  The  executors  had  full  j)Ower  as  to  the 
distribution  of  the  fund,  and  the  court  would  not  interfere 
with  the  exei'cise  of  tlieir  disci-etion  so  long  as  tliev  were 
acting  in  good  faiili.     I>)illes  Instate,  21S  Pa.  KVJ. 


.s;',i         Till-:  (M\  11.  i-AW  ANh  Tin:  cm  kch 

A  I>('(|ii('sl  lor  llic  iiiiiiistcis  of  tlic  New  Vink  ^'(•;l^ly 
nieetiii;;  <»r  I'^ricmls  cMllcd  ( )r(Iio(l(».\,  who  .nr  in  liniitol  :iiiil 
sti';iih'ii(Ml  (ii-ciiiiisliiMccs,  is  iiof  loo  \ii;;nc  or  uiiccrljiiii,  or 
loo  iiMlcfiiiilc  in  lis  ohjccls.  So  of  a  lu'ipu'st  foi-  llio  relief  ol" 
such  indigent  residents  ol'  llie  low  m  of  I"'liisliin^-.  as  the  trus- 
lee  or  Irnstees  of  the  town  for  the  lime  hein'^  shonid  s(de<t. 
Both  gifts  were  held  to  be  valid.  Shotwell  v  Molt,  2  Sandf. 
Ch.  (N.  Y.)  40. 

Testatrix  i)r()vided  contingently  for  the  use  of  a  part  of 
her  estate  by  paj'ing  it  to  snch  worthy  ]H)or  girls  as  the 
executors  might  select,  to  aid  in  their  education.  The 
executors  were  given  full  ]»ower  as  to  the  anionnts  to  be  i»ai<l 
and  the  times  of  payment.  This  provision  was  held  void  for 
uncertainty.  A\Tieelock  v  American  Tract  Soc.  100  Mich.  141. 

Legislature  Cannot  Modify.  Tharp  v  Fleming,  1  Houst. 
(Del.)  580,  held  void  a  statute  providing  for  the  sale  and 
conversion  of  real  estate  into  personalty,  devised  by  a  tes- 
tator in  perpetuity  and  trust  to  a  charity. 

Legislative  Power.  Land  dedicated  to  the  use  of  several 
religious  societies  to  be  a  perpetual  fund  for  the  support  of 
the  ministration  of  the  gospel  on  the  premises,  ami  to  be 
divided  equally  between  the  societies,  was  held  valid,  al- 
though no  trustee  was  created  by  the  deed.  The  Legislature 
had  power  to  appoint  a  trustee  to  administer  the  trust. 
Bryant  v  McCaudless,  7  Ohio  (pt.  11)  135. 

Limitation.  Under  the  New  York  religious  corporations 
act  of  18K>  the  trustees  cannot  take  a  trust  for  the  sole 
benefit  of  members  of  the  church  as  distinguished  from  other 
members  of  the  congregation,  nor  for  tlie  benefit  of  any  por- 
tion of  the  corporators  to  the  exclusion  of  others,  no  trust 
being  authorized  by  the  statute  except  for  the  use  and  benefit 
of  the  whole  society.  The  trustees  of  a  religious  corporation 
in  this  State  cannot  receive  a  trust  limited  to  the  support  of 
a  particular  faith,  or  a  particular  class  of  doctrines,  for  the 
reason  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  those  provisions  of  the 
statute  which  give  to  the  majority  of  the  corporators,  with- 
out regard  to  their  religious  tenets,  the  entire  control  over 


TRUSTS  835 

the  revemies  of  the  coipoiation.  KobeiMson  v  IJulliuiis,  11 
N.  Y.  243;  Gram  v  rni.ssia  Kiiiigrated  Evangelical  Lutheran 
German  Society,  36  N.  Y.  IGl  ;  see  also  Bellpoii  Tarish  v 
Tooker,  2U  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  25(1. 

Marine  Bible  Society.  The  testator  made  a  bequest  to  the 
Marine  Bible  Society,  but  there  was  no  such  society  in  exist- 
ence at  the  time  of  his  death.  There  had  been  previously  a 
society  known  as  the  Boston  Young  Men's  Marine  Bible 
Societ}',  organized  for  the  ]mri)ose  of  circnlatinj;  Bibles 
among  destitute  seamen.  The  court  sustained  the  trust,  not- 
withstanding the  nonexistence  of  the  society  named  in  tlif 
will,  and  appointed  a  trustee  to  receive  and  di.sjHj.Ne  of  the 
legacy,  by  appropriating  the  avails  thereof  to  the  purchase 
of  Bibles,  to  be  distributed  among  destitute  seamen,  as  near 
as  nmy  be  in  coid'oi-mity  with  the  constitution  and  by-laws 
of  the  Boston  Young  Men's  Marine  Bible  Society,  as  it  for- 
merly existed.    Winslow  v  Cummings,  3  Gush.  (Mass.)  358. 

Missions.  A  becpiest  of  money  to  be  a]>i)lied  to  the  sup- 
I)ort  of  missionaries  in  India,  under  the  direction  of  the 
General  Assembly  Board  of  Missions  of  the  Presbyterian 
Ghurch  in  the  United  States,  was  held  void  for  uncertainty. 
The  court  could  not  delei-mine  whether  all  missionaries  were 
to  be  beneficiaries,  or  only  Presbyterian  missionaries,  or 
whether  missionaries  in  service  at  the  date  of  Ihe  will,  or 
at  the  death  of  the  testatrix,  or  for  all  future  time  were  to 
be  included.  The  true  rule  as  to  such  bequests  is  that  the 
beneticiai-ies  must  be  certain  and  detinite.  and  so  clearly 
ascertained  that  Ihev  have  a  standing  in  a  court  of  eipiity  to 
enforce  the  trust.  IJoard  of  Foreign  Missions  of  tiie  IMcsby- 
terian  Glnu-ch  v  McMastcr.  l•^'(l.  Uas.  No.  l.r>S(;  i('ir.  Ct. 
Md.l. 

Object,  How  Ascertained.  Land  was  conNc.vcd  to  ihr  trus- 
tees of  the  society.  There  was  no  trust  unless  the  niert*  con- 
veyance to  a  religions  society  constituted  a  trust.  It  was 
held  that  although  Ihe  religious  opinions  of  ilie  gr.inlor 
might  not  be  incpiiicd  into  for  tin'  pnipo.se  of  ascertaining 
the  nature  and  extent   of  the  Irusi,  the  circumstances  sur- 


s:u\        Till-:  cix  iL  LAW  and  tiii;  riii  kch 

I  oiiiidiiij;  llic  iiKikiii^  ami  a('tt'|»t  in;;  ol'  llic  coiucyaiicc  may 
bo  inquired  into  for  llic  pniposi?  of  ascertaining  the  object 
of  the  trust.  In  this  case  a  trust  was  iinplit'd  that  the 
property  should  be  used  for  the  purposes  of  those  adher- 
ing and  in  subordination  to  the  religious  denomination  to 
which  it  was  conveyed.  Tlie  ]>resbvtery  decided  tiiat  the 
minority  were  adhei'ing  and  in  subordination  to  it;  and  that 
those  trustees  who  had  withdrawn  from  the  society  were  not 
adherents  of  the  Presbytery.  It  was  held  that  the  seceding 
trustees  could  not,  as  they  had  attempted  to  do,  lease  the 
property  to  a  Congregational  church.  First  Constitutional 
Presbj'terian  Churcli  v  Congregational  Society,  2?>  la.  567. 

Other  States.  The  validity  of  a  bequest  of  a  New  York 
testatrix  to  a  religious  denomination  for  the  purpose  of 
acquiring  real  property  in  another  State  on  which  to  erect 
a  church  and  rectory  must  be  determined  by  the  law  of  such 
other  State.    Mount  v  Tuttle,  183  N.  Y.  358. 

Parol,  When  Insufficient.  A  trust  in  land  cannot  be  created 
by  parol  in  an  unincorporated  religious  society.  Where 
several  persons,  members  of  different  denominations,  and 
some  apparently  not  members  of  auj-  denomination,  signed 
a  subscription  paper  for  the  erection  of  a  church  editice,  the 
paper  providing  that  the  building  when  not  occupied  by  the 
Baptists  be  opened  for  any  Cliristian  denomination  con- 
tributing to  its  erection  and  paying  their  portion  of  the  inci- 
dental expenses.  The  Universalists  and  Liberal  Christians 
joined  the  enterprise.  The  money  was  paid  to  a  Baptist 
minister,  who  bought  a  lot  and  erected  a  building  thereon, 
which  was  used  bj^  the  Baptists  on  Sundays  and  other  days 
and  also  by  the  Universalists.  The  minister  conveyed  the 
property  to  certain  persons,  describing  them  as  trustees  of 
the  Baptist  society.  There  was  no  such  corporation.  The 
grantees  refused  to  allow  the  house  to  be  used  by  any  de- 
nomination except  the  Baptists,  and  in  an  action  against 
them  it  was  held  that  the  subscribers  to  the  fund  for  the 
erection  of  the  church  had  acquired  no  right  in  the  premises, 
nor  was  any  valid  trust  created  on  their  part  which  would 


TKLSTS  837 

authorize  the  court  to  grant    tlie  relief  soufjjiit.     Follett  v 
Badeau,  2G  Hun.   (N.  Y.)  253. 

Parsonage.  A  conveyance  of  i)roi)erty  in  trust  for  use  as  a 
parsouage  to  be  occupied  by  ministers  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  of  the  United  States,  according  to  the  rules 
and  Discipline  adopted  by  the  General  Conference,  was  held 
void  for  uncertainty  under  the  statutes  of  N'irginia  and  West 
Virginia.  The  j)roperty  w;is  not  speciticnlly  conveyed  in 
trust  for  the  use  of  a  local  congregation  as  the  minister's 
resideuce.  The  projierty  was  conveyed  for  the  benefit  of  a 
particular  circuit,  but  a  circuit  is  not  ji  permanent  tcni 
torial  divisiou,  as  its  boundaries  were  likely  to  be  and  in  this 
case  had  beeu  changed.  The  trust  was,  therefore,  not  for  the 
benefit  of  a  particular  local  congregation  as  reipiired  by 
statute.  The  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcoj)al  Church 
residing  within  the  bounds  of  the  circuit,  liable  at  any  time 
to  be  changed,  did  not  constitute  a  congregation  within  the 
meaning  of  the  statute.  There  were,  in  fact,  several  distinct 
congregations  within  the  circuit  mentioned  in  the  deed. 
Carskadon   v  Torreyson,  17  W.  \'a.  43. 

Philips  Academy  Divinity  School.  F'or  a  history  of  its 
foundation  and  purposes,  .see  Trustees  Philips  Academy  v 
King,  12  Mass.  oMJ,  where  the  court  sustained  a  be(iuest  to 
that  part  of  the  academy  known  as  the  divinity  school,  to 
be  administered  according  to  the  plan  of  the  "associate 
foundation"  previously  established,  and  hehl  that  technical 
inter])retation  of  biblical  texts  in  stijiport  of  the  principh's 
of  Calvinism  should  not  j>revail  as  against  the  more  liberal 
purpose  of  inculcating  the  broack'r  i>rinciples  of  Chris- 
tianity as  api)]ied  to  the  mode  of  daily  life  and  the  regiilatioii 
of  personal  conduct. 

Poor  Jewish  Families.  A  i»e(inesl  for  tlie  benelit  of  jioor 
deserving  Jewi.sh  families,  residing  in  New  Haven,  Connect- 
icut, was  sustained  in  Hronson  v  Sti'ouse,  ~u  C(mn.  1 17.  The 
trustees  had  power  to  determine  what  families  wert*  within 
the  descrijition  and   niighl   disl»uisc   the   fniid   accordingly. 

Poor  Ministers.    A  heipiesi  for  llic  Iicnriii  nf  pooi'  minisiers 


8.'?8  TIM-:  ('l\II.   LAW    ANh  Till:  ("lirKCIl 

of  a  spccilKMl  i(']i;;i()iis  (l('iH»iiiiii:il  ion  is  Viili<l,  Ili»tii;^li  it  dues 
not  aj)iK)iiil  (he  Inistccs  «»!'  I  he  IiiikI.  il  is  <(»iii|iclciit  t'oi-  a 
testator  to  ciiipowci'  tlio  cxccnloi's  and  Inistt-es  of  his  will 
to  desl{^nale  llu'  lirsl  trustees  of  sncli  fnn<].  If  it  were  other- 
wise, the  ti'ust  wouhl  remain,  and  tlu;  conit  of  chancery 
wouM  a|»|>oint  llie  tnistci's.  Shot  well  v  Mott.  '1  Sandf.  Ch. 
(N.   Y.)    4(). 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary.  The  Associate  Reforme*! 
Church  authorized  (he  collection  of  funds  a)id  the  establish- 
ment of  a  theolojjical  seminary  ^\ith  a  suitable  library.  In 
Associate  Reformed  Church  v  Trustees  Theological  Semi- 
nary, Princeton,  4  N.  J.  ICq.  77,  it  was  held  that  the  General 
Synod  had  no  power  to  elt'ect  a  consolidation  with  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  and  thereby 
transfer  the  library  and  funds  from  the  theological  semi- 
nary of  the  Associate  Keformed  Church  to  the  I'resbyterian 
Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton. 

Religious  Services.  A  bequest  to  a  person  in  trust  for  the 
purpose  of  maintaining  religious  services  during  her  lifetime 
in  a  private  unincorporated  memorial  chapel,  was  void  for 
the  reason  that  there  was  not  in  existence  any  person,  cor- 
poration, or  clergj'man  who  could  enforce  the  trust;  and  a 
bequest  over,  after  this  trustee's  decease,  to  the  parochial 
fund  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese  of 
Western  New  York  was  also  void,  for  the  reason  that  the 
trustees  of  this  fund  could  not  take  the  trust  under  the  act 
creating  the  organization.  The  trust  attempted  to  be  estab- 
lished through  this  society  provided  that  the  income  thereof 
should  be  used  for  paying  a  clergjinau  who  should  hold 
<livine  services  in  the  said  memorial  chapel  as  often  as 
convenient,  also  for  keeping  it  in  repair  as  well  as  its 
cemetery  adjacent.  The  charter  contemplated  an  organized 
body  having  legal  existence;  and  the  language  of  the  will 
in  question  did  not  specify  any  particular  parish,  or  any 
organized  body  which  should  receive  the  income.  Butler  v 
Trustees  Parochial  Fund  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
Western  New  York.  !)2  llun  (  N.  Y.  i  «k;. 


TRUSTS  S3!) 

Sectarian  Purpose.  11  a  uust  is  created,  or  a  charity  i^'wan 
for  the  beiielil  or  use  of  a  sectarian  society  by  its  sectarian 
and  denominational  name,  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  it  was 
intended  to  be  used  to  advance  the  peculiar  doctrines  ol  that 
sect;  and  if  a  meetin<;lious('  is  conveyed  in  trust  for  certain 
persons,  to  be  under  the  control  of  the  society  of  Christians, 
it  would  be  the  duly  of  the  court,  u]>on  ju-oper  application 
and  j)roofs,  to  see  that  the  house  was  ((nitrollcd  by  a  society 
of  Christians,  and  not  by  Mohammedans,  i)a^ans,  or  inti- 
dels,  even  tliou<;h  a  majority  of  the  ori<;inal  society  have 
ajjostatized  from  the  faith  of  the  sect  which  formed  the 
society. 

The  denominatictnal  name  of  a  religious  society  to  which, 
or  to  whose  use,  a  donation  or  grant  is  made,  and  the  doc- 
trines actually  taught  therein  at  tlie  time  of  the  gift  ov 
grant,  and  immediately  after,  and  the  length  of  time  ihcy 
continue  to  be  thus  taught  without  interruption  may  be 
resorted  to,  to  limit  and  define  the  trust  in  re.spect  to  doc- 
trines deemed  fundamental ;  that  wliere  the  conveyance  is 
merely  to  the  religious  corporation  b}'  name,  with  no  other 
designation  of  its  pur])Oses  or  trusts  (as  in  this  ca.se),  the 
denominational  name,  in  connection  with  the  contemjiora- 
neous  acts  of  the  corjjorators,  may  be  a  suilicient  guide  to  the 
nature  of  the  trust;  that  where  there  is  no  sjiecific  designa- 
tion in  the  deed  as  to  the  particular  religious  tenets  or  doc- 
trines which  it  is  to  be  used  to  advance  or  sujipoit.  ilic 
denominational  name  may  indicate  the  n;itui('  of  liie  trust, 
so  far  as  respects  doctrines  admitted  to  be  fundanwutal  ; 
and  that,  if  the  .society  of  one  religions  sect  or  denomination 
becomes  incorj)orated  with  a  strict  <lt'iu»minational  name 
descriptive  of  the  fundamental  <loclrines  (»f  the  sect  l<»  wliich 
it  belongs,  it  will  be  jucsunu'd  th.il  it  was  const  it  nied  for 
the  purpose  of  advancing  liie  vital  «locirines  of  such  sect  or 
denomination,  and  that  society  or  those  having  contrcd  ol 
})roperty  held  in  trust  for  tiu'  bcnclil  of  such  i-eligious 
society,  should  be  reslraincil  I'mni  applying  tiie  propei-iy. 
or  the   use   of   it,    to    llic    proniKlion    ol    Irnets   or   doctrines 


S-10  TIIIO  (M\  II.   LAW    AND  Till:  CllLiaJU 

clciirly  <>|»|)(>s('(l  jiihI  iidvcrsc  to  llic  fiiiMliiiiMMital  princij)leK 
of  Uic  fiiidi  :iii<l  (loci  lines  of  siicli  sect  nv  (IciioiiiiMJit  ion  at 
llic  liiiic,  .-iikI  iiiiiiicdiiilciv  ;irici-  llic  trust  was  created.    Hale 

V  i':v('i('it,  :>:;  x.  ii.  i. 

Sunday  School.  riojKMlv  \\;is  coiucycd  lo  li-ustccs  in  trust 
for  the  uses  of  a  Saldcitli  school,  for  the  dilfusioii  of 
Clirislian  pi-inciides  as  t;m<;lit  and  jiracticed  by  Christian 
Ihaiiiiclical  denominations,  witli  power  lo  erect,  repair,  and 
renew  Irom  time  to  time  all  buildings  necessary  to  carry  out 
tiie  object  and  j)urposes  of  the  trust  herein  described.  The 
trustees  and  their  successors  had  power  to  sell  the  land 
to  this  society,  and  received  in  exchange  other  land  which 
was  subsequently  reconveyed  to  the  society.  Such  transfer 
re(piired  the  concurrence  of  all  the  trustees,  and  it  was  there- 
fore held  that  the  trustee  who  did  not  give  his  consent  could 
maintain  an  action  to  set  aside  the  conveyance  and  restore 
tlie  ])roperty.    Morville  v  P^)wle,  144  Mass.  109. 

Suspending  Power  of  Alienation.  A  conveyance  to  trustees 
of  an  unincorporated  religious  society  for  the  purpose  of 
erecting  a  house  of  worship  on  the  land  conveyed,  with  the 
provision  that  vacancies  in  the  office  of  trustee  should  be 
filled  by  the  congregation,  does  not  susj)end  the  power  of 
alienation,  for  the  reason  that  such  trustees  are  persons  in 
being,  by  whom  an  absolute  fee  in  possession  could  be  con- 
veyed.   Fadness  v  Braunborg,  7."»  Wis,  257. 

Title.  A  conveyance  of  property  to  a  religious  society  for 
general  religious  purposes  vests  the  title  in  the  trustees  of 
the  society  and  they  become  seized  for  the  use  of  the  body. 
Each  member  of  the  church  becomes  entitled  to  a  beneficial 
interest  in  the  property  of  the  church  so  long  as  his  or  her 
connection  or  membership  continues.  Brunnenmeyer  v 
Buhre,  :{2  111.  18.S. 

Unincorporated  Society.  Lan<l  was  conveyed  to  two  persons 
in  trust  for  an  unorganized  religious  society,  and  upon  the 
organization  of  the  society  was  conveyed  to  them,  upon  con- 
dition that  they  should  hold,  occupy,  and  improve  the  same 
for  religious  worship,  and  support  a  minister  there.     It 


TRUSTS  841 

was  held  that  the  minister  and  a  ininui-ity  of  ihe  .society, 
not  being  pewholders,  nor  having  paid  any  purchase  money, 
could  not  maintain  a  bill  in  equity  to  restrain  the  society 
from  reconveying  the  estate  to  the  trustees,  discharged  of 
any  trust,  nor  to  compel  them  to  permit  the  minister  to 
preach  in  the  house.  Clark  v  Evangelical  Society,  Quincy, 
12  Gray  (Mass.)    17. 

Under  the  New  York  act  of  ISKI  property,  both  real  and 
I)ersonal,  may  be  held  in  trust  lor  the  use  of  an  unincor- 
porated religious  society  without  any  restriction  as  to  time, 
except  that  it  shall  terminate  upon  lawful  incorporation  of 
the  religious  society,  when  In'  virtue  of  the  act  the  title  vests 
in  the  corporation.  The  trust  may  be  shown  by  parol  as  well 
as  by  deed.  The  same  rule  governs  as  to  personal  jiropert}' 
held  by  an  incorjiorated  religious  society  for  the  use  of  an 
unincorporated  society  as  if  it  were  hehl  by  luitural  persons. 
Kector,  etc.,  Church  of  the  Redemption  v  Rector,  etc.,  Grace 
Church,  GS  N.  Y.  570. 

Where  property  is  i)urchased  by  an  unincorporaled  reli- 
gious society  for  a  special  purpose,  or  is  taken  in  the  name 
of  a  third  j)erson  with  the  [)urchaser's  consent,  a  trust  is 
created  which  can  be  enforced,  although  not  in  writing. 
Fink  V  Umscheid,  40  Kan.  271. 

The  fact  that  a  religious  society  to  whose  ti-ustees  land 
was  conveyed  in  trust  for  the  erection  thereon  of  a  church 
had  not  been  incorporated  when  the  deed  was  delivered  did 
not  invalidate  the  trust.  The  deed  in  such  case  vested  the 
legal  title  in  the  trustees,  and  upon  the  sub.seipient  im-orpora- 
tion  of  the  society  such  legal  title  became  vested  in  tlie  cor- 
poration subject  to  the  trust.  Fa(hiess  v  HraunlHirg.  7:*> 
AYis.  257. 

A  conveyance  of  land  to  a  conimiltee  of  a  congregation 
or  an  unincorjiorated  religious  society,  vests  the  title  in 
such  committee  as  trustees  "for  a  body  of  individuals  who 
have  united  together  and  contributed  of  their  means  to  pur- 
chase land  and  erect  a  house  of  public  wcuship,"'  and  the 
pewholders  and  other  jxtsoiis  .issim  i.ited    with    the  congrc- 


Slli  Til  10  ('l\IL   LAW    AM)   Till;  rjll   KCJl 

{pillion  •.[]■('  hciK'liciMrics  of  the  liusl.  An  iiiiinroipoiMfi'd 
fougrejiiil  ion  or  socicly  is  iii(;ip;il»lc  oT  t;ikin<i  tith;  to  real 
|>i'o|)('i'1y,  hill  lli(!  (•onvcyiiiicc  iniist  be  to  a  p(M"soii  or  jjcrsonis 
ill  tiMisI  I'oi-  tho  society.  The  legal  estate  is  in  the  trust»*eH, 
l)nt  llie  heneticial  estate  is  in  the  members.  Such  a  trust  may 
he  terminated  and  new  denominational  relations  assumed 
and  formed  hy  consent,  and  esjiecially  l)y  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  ineinhers  ot  the  society.  Attoi-ney-General  v 
]*roi>rietors  of  meetinglujuse  in  Federal  Street,  '.i  (Jray 
(Mass.)   1. 

A  purchase  of  land  for  a  <liurch  hy  an  unincorporated 
society,  the  title  to  be  taken  in  the  name  of  two  designated 
members  who  were  to  convey  the  property  to  a  corpoiation 
to  be  subsequently  organized,  imposed  on  such  grantees  a 
trust  which  was  fully  discharged  by  the  conveyance  to  the 
corporation.  Centenary  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  v 
Parker,  4:J  N.  J.  Eq.  307. 

Where  there  is  a  devise  of  real  estate  to  a  church  incapable 
of  taking  the  title  because  not  incorj)orated,  the  devise  is 
not  void,  but' the  legal  title  descends  to  the  heirs,  charged 
with  the  trust,  which  they  will  be  required  to  execute,  or  a 
court  of  equity  will  appoint  a  trustee  to  execute  the  trust, 
until  the  church  becomes  incorporated,  and  acquires  the 
capacity  to  hold  the  legal  title.    Byers  v  McCartney,  02  la. 

ooit. 

TJniversalist  Church.  A  bequest  for  the  establivshment  of 
a  nniversalist  society,  with  i>rovision  for  the  erection  of  a 
building,  and  the  employment  of  a  preacher,  was  hehl  a 
charity  and  valid.  Cory  Uuiversalist  Societj'  v  Beatty,  28 
N.  J.  Eq.  570. 

Worship,  Usage,  How  Determined.  "Where  an  institution 
exists  for  the  purpose  of  religious  worship,  and  it  cannot 
be  discovered  from  the  deed  declaring  the  trust  what  forin 
or  species  of  religious  worship  was  intended,  the  court  will 
inquire  into  the  usage  of  the  congregation  respecting  such 
worship,  and  if  the  usage  turns  out  upon  inquirs^  to  be  such 
as  can  be  supported,  it  will  be  the  duty  of  the  court  to 


TRUSTS  si:; 

administer  the  trust  in  sncli  manner  as  best  to  estahlish 
the  usage,  considering  it  as  a  nmtter  of  implied  contract 
between  the  mendiers  of  the  congregation.  Where  a  congre- 
gation becomes  dissentient  among  themselves  tlie  nature  of 
the  original  institution  must  alone  be  looked  to  as  the  guide 
for  the  decision  of  the  court,  and  to  refer  to  any  other  ( li 
terion — as  to  the  sense  of  the  existing  nmjority,  would  be 
to  make  a  new  institution."  "If  any  persons  seeking  the 
benefit  of  a  trust  for  cluiritable  ]>uri»oses  should  object  to 
the  adoption  of  a  different  system  from  that  which  was 
inteiuled  by  the  original  donors  and  foinnlers;  and  if  others 
of  those  who  are  interested  think  j)roi)er  to  adhere  to  the 
origimil  system,  the  leaning  of  tlie  court  must  be  to  sui)port 
those  adhering  to  the  original  system,  and  not  to  sacrifice 
the  original  system  to  any  change  of  sentiment  in  the  per- 
sons seeking  alteration,  however  commendable  that  ]»ro]»osed 
alteration  nmy  be."  Attorney-General  v  Tearson,  '.\  Merv. 
(lOng.)  o53. 


UNINCORPORATED  SOCIETY 

Bequest  to,  void,  844. 

Church  assessments,  844. 

Couveyance  to,  valid,  844. 

Incorporation,  effect,  845. 

Incorporation,  effect  on  title  to  land,  845. 

Members,  liability,  845. 

Property,  how  held,  846. 

Right  to  sue,  846. 

Roman  Catholic,  846. 

Trustees,  protected,  846. 

Bequest  to.  Void.  Tn  New  York  a  voluntary  unincorpo- 
rated as.sociation  has  no  legal  capacity  to  receive  a  bequest 
even  for  a  charitable  purpose.  Pratt  v  Koraan  Catholic 
Orphan  Asylum,  20  App.  l^iv.  (N.  Y.)  352. 

A  bequest  to  an  unincorporated  association  or  society  is 
void — there  can  be  no  valid  trust  without  a  certain  donee  or 
beneficiary.  First  Presbyterian  Society,  Chili  v  Bowen.  21 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  389. 

Clmrcli  Assessments.  Members  may  be  exempted  from 
assessment  for  support  of  parish  church.  Adams  v  Howe, 
14  Mass.  340. 

Conveyance  to,  Valid.  An  unincorporated  society  may 
purchase  land  for  a  church  and  take  the  title  in  the  name  of 
designated  members  to  be  convej^ed  to  the  corporation  to 
be  subsequently  organized.  Upon  such  a  conveyance  to  the 
c()r])()ration  the  trust  im])osed  on  the  first  grantees  is  fully 
discharged,  and  no  trust  follows  as  against  the  corporation 
itself.  Centenary  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  v  Parker, 
43  N.  J.  Eq.  307. 

A  conveyance  to  an  unincorporated  religious  society  of 
land  for  church  purposes  is  valid,  and  vests  title  in  the  oflS- 
cers  of  the  society.  Alden  v  St.  Peter's  Parish,  Sycamore, 
158  111.  631. 

844 


UNINCORroiiATlOl)  SOCIETY  845 

Incorporation,  Effect.  If  an  iiniiicoi-porated  society  be 
come.s  iiicoipoiak'd,  property  owned  by  it  passes  to  the  new 
eorporatiou.  Gewin  v  Mt.  Pilgrim  Baptist  Church,  IGG  Ala. 
345. 

Incorporation,  Effect  on  Title  to  Land.  A  couveyance  was 
made  in  1882  to  certain  per.sous,  describing  them  as  trustees 
of  this  society.  The  next  year,  1883,  the  society  erected  a 
church  edilice  on  the  land.  In  December,  1885,  the  society 
was  incorporated.  The  trustees  named  in  tlie  incorporation 
j)apers  were  the  same  i)ersons  named  as  grantees  in  the  deed. 
Under  the  statute  (he  corporation  became  the  owner  of  prop 
erty  previously  acquired  bj"^  the  unincorporated  society, 
including  that  conveyed  to  trustees  as  above  described,  and 
was  held  to  be  in  possession  of  it  at  the  time  of  this  action, 
but  owing  to  defects  in  several  conveyances,  it  seems  that  the 
church  had  not  acquired  a  good  title  to  the  property.  De 
Sanchez  v  Grace  Methodist  lOpiscopal  Ghurch,  114  Gal.  -i)5. 

Members,  Liability.  Members  of  a  church  organization 
liaving  no  legal  existence,  who  are  directly  instrumetital  in 
incurring  liabilities  for  it,  or  who  authorize  or  ratify  trans- 
actions made  in  its  name,  are  personall}'  liable,  while  those 
nicnduM's  \\li<)  do  not  in  any  way  ]tartici]>atc  in  such  transac- 
lions  are  exempt  from  liability.  The  niendiei-s  of  a  linildiiig 
committee  of  such  an  organization  who  Ii.inc  t  liarge  of  the 
work  of  coiisti'ucting  a  church  building  are  personally  liable 
lor  materials  furni.shed  to  them  for  such  jnnpo.se,  althou.uli 
the  account  was  charged  in  the  name  of  (he  sociely,  and 
although  the  seller  was  infoi-med  that  the  church  in(ende.l 
to  raise  the  necessai-y  funds  by  a  <'hurch  fair  and  by  indi- 
vidual subscriptions.     (Mark  \   O'Konrke.   Ill    Mitli.   KIS. 

In   Thurmond   v   Cedar  Spring  Baptist    Ciiurcli,    110   Ga. 
810,  it  was  held  that  the  mendtei's  of  an  uninc(»r|M»ratetl  iiji 
gious  societj''  were  liable  as  joint  pi-omissois  or  par(ners  foe 
a  debt  contracted  in  the  erection  of  a  church  edilice. 

The  societ}'  was  not  incorporated,  and  it  had  not  tiled 
and  recorded  its  name  ami  objects  as  reipiired  by  (he  code. 
It   ^\as  lield  tliat    (lie  society  could   not   ln'  swa]  as  such   but 


sir,        Tin:  ri\  iL  LAW  A\i»  T\\\:  <iiri;<  II 

(hat  its  iiK'iiilH'rs  were  liable  on  its  (-ontraclK  as  joint  proni- 
issors  or  ])artn(Ms.  Wilkins  v  Wardens  etc,,  St.  Mark's  I'rot. 
Epis.  Ch.,  52  (Ja.  :;r,l. 

A  member  of  an  nnincorporati'd  religions  society  is  not 
responsible  for  its  debts  unless  he  in  some  way  sanctioned 
or  acquiesced  in  their  creation.  Males  v  Murray,  7  O.  Nisi 
]*rius  Ke.  014,  citing  I)e  Voss  v  Gray.  22  O.  S.  150;  see  also 
I'lattsmouth  First  National  Bank  v  Kector,  59  Neb.  77. 

Property,  How  Held.  Members  of  voluntary  unincorjjo- 
rated  associations  can  hold  property  in  no  other  way  than 
through  the  medium  of  trustees  acting  as  depositaries  of 
the  legal  title,  and  this  equitable  interest  entitled  each 
beneficiary  to  the  same  voice  in  the  nuinagement  and  con- 
trol of  the  i)ro})erty  as  if  he  were  a  joint  owner  and  holder 
of  the  legal  title.    Clark  v  Brown,  108  S.  W.  (Tex.)  421. 

Right  to  Sue.  In  an  action  by  the  society  against  its 
treasurer  to  recover  funds  in  its  hands,  the  treasurer 
objected  to  the  capacity  of  the  society  to  sue,  on  the  ground 
that  it  had  not  become  a  corporation.  Several  meetings  of 
the  society  were  shown,  and  the  transaction  of  various  items 
of  business,  but  the  court  said  these  things  might  have  been 
done  by  an  unincorporated  association,  and  were  not  neces- 
sarily evidence  of  the  existence  of  a  corporation.  It  was  also 
said  that  the  treasurer  was  not  estopped  from  denying  the 
corporate  existence  of  the  society.  Fredenburg  v  Lyon  Lake 
Methodist  Episcoi)al  Church,  37  Mich.  470. 

Roman  Catholic.  In  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  property 
owned  by  an  unincorporated  societ}'  is  conveyed  to  the 
bishop.  But  property  purchased  by  a  congregation  for  its 
special  use  continues  subject  to  its  control  notwithstanding 
a  conveyance  to  the  bishop  who  holds  it  in  trust  for  the 
particular  congregation,  and  it  cannot  be  used  for  general 
church  purposes.    Fink  v  Umscheid,  40  Kan.  271. 

Trustees,  Protected.  Courts  of  equity  will  protect  unin- 
corporated societies  in  what  they  hold,  in  order  to  sustain 
trusts,  because  of  their  charitable  uses,  which  would  other- 
wise be  held  void.    Hundlev  v  Collins,  131  Ala.  234. 


UNITARIANS 

Bequest  sustained,  847. 

Doctrines  and  worship,  schism,  847. 

Taxation,  851. 

Bequest  Sustained.  In  Coiigregatioual  Unitari.m  Society 
V  Hale,  2U  A.  J).  (N.  Y.j  JJIMI,  this  society  was  held  entilh-d 
to  receive  a  legacy  given  by  a  New  York  teslator,  although 
the  society  was  not  incorporated,  it  a]»]>earing  that  un(h'r 
the  laws  of  Massa<'husetts  such  a  society  was  entitled  to 
take  and  hold  ]»i-oi»erty. 

Doctrines  and  Worship,  Schism.  This  society  was  incor]>o- 
rated  in  1827  for  the  jtnrpose  of  promoting  religions  knowl- 
edge and  Christian  virtues.  In  1828  a  meetinghouse  was 
erected  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  Christian  worship. 
The  fund  for  erecting  the  house  was  ])rovided  by  stock,  sold 
to  several  i)ersons,  nearly  all  of  whom  were  mend)ei-s  of  the 
society.  A  conveyance  of  the  land  on  which  the  nieeting 
house  was  erected  was  made  to  five  ])ers(nis  in  trust  for  the 
general  purposes  of  the  society,  which  conveyance  vested 
the  proprietors  of  the  jirojterty  with  the  management  ;iiid 
control  thereof,  including  the  sale  and  oc(n|t;incy  of  the 
pews.  At  a  meeting  of  the  ]>ro]>rietors,  hehl  jtrior  to  the  sale 
of  the  i)ews,  an  annuiil  ]»ew  l;ix  was  established,  the  pro- 
ceeds to  be  used  foi-  the  jtromotion  of  public  worship  under 
the  direction  of  tlie  society.  Pews  were  s(d(l  and  conveyed 
in  accordance  with  these  regulations.  \';ic;incies  in  the 
board  of  trustees  were  duly  tilled  fi-om  liine  to  time  by  elec- 
tion. The  legal  title  to  the  ].i'o|K'rty  was  held  by  trustees 
of  the  society  in  trust  for  the  use  of  the  stockholdns  or 
j)roprietors  of  snid  nieetinghou.se,  but  not  for  their  genei;il  or 
unrestricted  use. 

A  question  arose  as  to  the  right  to  the  title  ;ind  jmsses- 
sion  of  the  ]>roperty,  growing  out  of  i-eligions  ojiinions  an- 
nounced by  the  pastor  of  the  society,     it  was  ilaimed  by  one 

847 


848  THE  ('I\ll.  LAW  AND  Till:  CI  KIRCH 

piirly  llial.  Ik;  had  ceased  (o  hold,  iiiaiiilaiii,  and  |»r(!aclj  the 
doctrines  of  Christianit}'  as  licM  by  the  founders  of  the  so- 
ciety and  their  successors,  and  Ihat  he  had  preached  do(r- 
trines  oi)i)Ose<l  to  llu^  (Mirislian  faith  and  tending  to  subvert 
it  among  the  niend)ers  of  tl>e  society.  The  trust  was  reposed 
in  this  society  because  it  was  composed  of  Unitarian  (Chris- 
tians, and  tlie  trust  was  not  established  for  the  benefit  of 
persons  who  were  simply  members  of  a  civil  corporation. 

Tt  was  held  that  the  defendants,  who  claimed  to  be  a  ma- 
jority of  the  society,  liad  in  fact,  most  of  them  seceded  from 
the  doctrines  and  faith  of  the  original  sect  which  founded 
the  society,  and  were  no  longer  in  any  proper  sense  of  the 
term  Unitarian  Christians.  The  nieetingliou>e  of  this  society 
was  dedicated  by  Christian  ministers  of  the  Unitarian  con- 
gregational churches  in  the  usual  form,  and  the  first  min- 
ister was  ordaine<l  by  the  same  council  of  ministers  that 
dedicated  the  church.  Before  the  dedication  a  church  cor- 
poration was  formed  composed  of  members  of  the  society. 

On  the  2(ltli  of  April,  1821),  the  Dover  Unitarian  Society 
adopted  the  following  covenant : 

"As  it  seems  to  be  the  duty  of  every  Christian  church 
cautiously  to  obey  the  injunction  of  the  apostle  that  all 
things  be  done  decently  and  in  order,  while  at  the  same  time 
it  avoids  imi)0sing  anything  by  way  of  covenant  or  articles  of 
faith,  which  may  not  be  conscientiously  complied  with  by 
all  who  profess  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thereby 
deprive  many  of  the  benefit  of  Christian  ordinances  who  have 
a  right  and  privilege  to  enjoy  them  ;  therefore, 

'^Resolved,  That  the  following  acknowledgment  shall  be 
the  covenant  of  this  church,  to  be  assented  to  by  all  who 
may  hereafter  wish  to  unite  themselves  with  us  for  the 
benefit  of  Christian  ordinances:  Do  you  believe  in  Jesus 
Christ  as  the  ^lessiah,  and  acce])t  his  religion  as  a  revela- 
tion from  Cod,  the  true  guide  of  your  faith  and  rule  of  your 
duty?  With  a  deep  sense  of  your  imperfection  and  weak- 
ness, and  a  humble  and  grateful  reliance  upon  God  for  the 
pardon  of  sin,  and  assistance  in  duty,  will  you  solemnly  and 


UNITARIANS  841) 

earnestly  endeavor,  bj-  atteiKhiiKc  ujion  \\w  services  of  rcli 
gion,  aud  In'  tlie  offices  of  ('liiisiijiii  clKnily  ;iinl  jticiv,  to 
become  a  sincere  (liscii)le  of  .Icsiis  Cliiisi,  tluit  htini;  Initlifnl 
to  yourself,  your  fellow  men,  and  to  (;<»<!,  yon  iiuiy  not  Ik- 
found  wanting  in  that  da^-  when  lie  shall  judge  Ihc  world  in 
righteousness  b}^  that  Man  whom  he  hath  appointed? 

"Resolved,  further.  That  any  person  wishing  to  unite  with 
us  in  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supjier,  his  desire  having 
been  j)reviously  signified  by  the  pastor  of  the  »hiii(h,  he 
shall,  nnless  some  serious  objection  be  made,  be  received  on 
the  acknowledgment  of  the  above  covenant,  or  any  other 
form  of  words  he  may  prefer  expressing  a  belief  in  Chris- 
tianity, to  the  full  communion  of  this  chnrch  to  tlie  enjoy- 
ment of  all  its  benehts. 

"Res()h:ed,  further,  That  baptism  shall  be  administered  to 
all  who  desire  it,  to  themselves  or  their  children,  ui)on  their 
assent  to  the  following  declaration,  which  shall  be  put  to 
them  by  the  ])astor  before  administering  the  oitlinance: 
I>o  you  believe  in  Jesus  Thrist  as  the  ^Messiah,  and  regard 
his  religion  as  a  revelation  of  Ood?" 

The  Lord's  Su])i)ei'  was  administered  April  2(1,  1S2!>.  The 
court  h(dd  that  this  society  was  not  only  Chiistian  in  name 
but  also  in  its  [irinciples,  doctrines,  and  (U-dinances.  Tin- 
court  further  held  that  the  society,  since  its  organization  an<l 
until  SeptcMnber,  180-1,  had  maintained  i-egnlar  pnblic  Chris 
tian  worship  on  the  Sabbath,  and  had  ]»i-eacliing  by  regnlarly 
ordained  ministers  of  the  I"nitai-ian  denominalioii  fur  Cliris- 
tians,  who  there,  at  sncli  meetings,  lu-eaciied  and  tanglit  the 
doctrines  of  Christianity,  as  held  by  the  sect  of  Christians 
called  Unitarian. 

The  defendant,  Francis  IC.  Abbott,  became  |iastor  (if  (he 
chnrch  on  Angnst  .'>!,  18(14,  and  conlin\ied  as  such  uniil 
April  1,  1808,  when  he  resigned.  iMirinu  ilie  latter  part  <»f 
his  ministry  he  said  that  "Jesns  Christ  was  like  other  men. 
with  no  more  authority,''  and  compared  Christ  with  Car 
rison  ami  other  good  men;  that  he  considered  ('lii-ist  as  a 
mere  man,  and   fallible  like  other  men;  lliat  ("hiisl   was  not 


sno  TIIK  ('l\  IL   l>A\V  AM)  Till:  (III   IM  || 

(lie  Mcssijili,  ;iim1  IIkiI  if  lie  (Cliiistj  liclicxcd  liimsclf  to  he 
llic  M('ssi;ili,  lie  w;is  iiiislnUcn.  I*'iii;illy  .Mr.  AhbotI  s;ii<l  lir 
was  not  a  (Miristian  nor  a  Unitarian  so  far  as  Unitaiianisni 
was  based  iijton  ('liiistianity,  or  llie  recognition  of  (!ijrist 
as  the  Messiah;  and  prochiinied  himself  a  theist  an«l 
l)reaehed  liis  tlieistical  (hx-trines  to  sndi  ;iii  <'xtent  as  to 
j^ive  great  dissatisfaction  to  Ihc  members  of  the  chnrcli  and 
society.  In  conse(|nence  of  snch  dissatisfaction,  Mv.  Abbott, 
acting  on  the  advice  of  friends,  resigned  the  jiastoiate,  wiiich 
took  effect  on  the  1st  of  April,  1S(;8.  The  text  of  his  fare- 
well sermon,  preached  on  the  2!>th  of  ^larch,  ISdS,  was  from 
the  writings  of  Ixalph    Waldo  l>merson. 

The  1st  of  Ai)ril,  ISdS,  Mr.  Abbott  commenced  j)reaching 
for  an  inde|)endent  society  in  a  hall  in  Dover,  and  after 
l)reaching  there  a  few  Sabbaths,  he  returned  to  the  church 
of  the  Unitarian  Society,  and  preached  there  alternate  Sun- 
days for  a  few  months.  Later,  in  a  communication  to  the 
Liberal  Christian,  i)nb]ished  in  New  York,  Mr.  Abbott  said, 
among  other  things:  "1  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  in 
no  sense  is  Jesus  the  Messiah  or  Christ  of  God.  The  soul 
is  its  own  Christ.  Humanity  is  its  own  Messiah.  I  reject 
Christianity  that  I  may  still  cleave  to  religion,  which  admits 
of  no  mediator,  because  it  is  immediate."  "Religion  has  no 
more  to  do  with  Jesus  than  it  has  with  Judas.  It  leaves  the 
soul  alone  with  God.  It  acknowledges  no  leader;  is  loyal  to 
no  master;  imitates  no  exemplar,  looks  to  no  redeemer; 
needs  no  Saviour,  knows  no  Christ."  He  said  he  could  not 
make  the  confession  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ  of  God. 

In  May,  18(18,  a  large  number  of  members  of  the  society 
made  a  written  protest  against  the  use  of  the  church  prop- 
erty excei^t  for  the  avowed  purposes  of  its  organization. 
Mr.  Abbott  admitted  the  general  change  of  sentiment  from 
that  of  a  minister  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  at  the  time  of  his 
ordination  to  that  of  the  gospel  of  humanity. 

After  Mr.  Abbott's  resignation  some  of  the  wardens  who 
sympathized  with  him  invited  him  to  continue  to  occupy  the 
pulpit,  but  he  declined   to  do  so  unless  the  society  would 


UNITARIANS  851 

chaniife  its  name  to  conroriii  to  Iiis  own  cliaii'rt'  of  view  l»v 
which  he  had  ceased  to  be  either  a  Unitarian  or  a  Christian. 
At  a  parish  meeting  on  the  12tli  of  Ajjril,  18(IS,  the  wardens 
were  instructed  to  eni]»h)y  only  rnitarian  Christians  to  sn]i- 
ply  the  desk.  Mr.  Abbott's  friends  organized  an  indejiendenl 
society.  This  society  held  its  first  nieetinj;  on  the  iMlth  of 
April,  18(>S,  in  the  American  Ilall,  at  which  time  Mr.  .\hl»(»ii 
took  charge  of  the  services.  On  the  I'Tlli  of  April  mini  her 
parish  meeting  of  the  regular  society  was  held,  and  wjirtjcns 
were  elected  and  a  resolution  adojyted  assigning  the  use  of 
the  church  to  each  n\'  the  two  divisions  of  the  society  lur  one 
half  the  time,  under  which  arrangement  the  indeiM'udent  so- 
ciety was  permitted  to  occupy  the  church  half  of  the  time. 
Mr.  Abbott  occupied  the  jtnlpit. 

The  court  said  that  the  defendants,  excejd  Mr.  Abbott, 
by  forming  an  imiependent  society  had  abandoned  the  regu- 
lar Unitarian  society,  and  forfeited  all  right  to  that  society's 
pr()])erty,  which  belonged  to  the  old  society,  and  it  could  not 
be  <liverted  to  purposes  not  contemplated  by  the  original 
trust.  An  injunction  was  gi-anted  against  the  u.se  of  tin- 
meetinghouse  l)y  Mr.  Abbott  or  by  any  other  ])ersons  prt'ach 
ing  the  same  doctrines,  or  permitting  the  use  thereof,  except 
for  the  purposes  for  which  the  original  society  was  foi  ined. 
Hale  V  Everett,  5:^,  N.  H.  1. 

Taxation.  The  statute  of  Connecticut  exem]»l<'d  fi-om  luxa- 
tion a  fund  not  exceeding  flO,000,  composed  of  stocks, 
bonds,  etc.,  owned  by  a  religious  society,  and  inxcsted  for  the 
benefit  of  the  church,  the  income  derived  therefrom  being 
used  for  local  chui-ch  purposes.  It  was  held  ihal  ;in  invest- 
ment of  such  a  fund  in  real  estate  ili<l  not  continnc  ilir 
exemption  but  such  real  estate  was  subject  to  taxaiion.  h 
was  also  held,  in  this  case,  that  in  view  <tf  the  long  coni  inncd 
l»ractice  in  the  state  of  exempt  ing  church  pi-oju-rty  from 
taxation,  an  occasional  renting  of  church  ]»roperty  for  lec- 
tures, concerts,  readings,  amateur  theatricals,  and  other 
like  enfertainmeuts  did  not  subject  the  ]tio|icrty  to  ta.xation. 
First  Unitarian  Society,  llartfni-d  v  llaillord.  (i(l  Conn.  iMiS. 


UNITED  BRETHREN  IN  CHRIST 

Amended  constitution  and  confession  of  faith,  852. 

Amending;  constitution,  1885-1889,  853. 

Canada,  853. 

Division,  855. 

Government,  836. 

History,  859. 

History  and  form  of  government,  860. 

Majority's  right,  861. 

Philomath  College,  862. 

Amended  Constitution  and  Confession  of  Faith.  In  1840 
land  was  conveyed  to  trnstees  for  the  nse  of  the  local  society, 
according-  to  the  rules  and  disTipline  of  the  denoniinalion. 
There  was  then  a  house  of  worship  on  the  land  conveyed. 
The  lejial  title  to  the  property  was  hehl  by  such  trustees, 
and  their  successors,  regularly  chosen  by  the  society. 

The  General  Conference  of  1889  adopted  a  revised  consti- 
tution and  confession  of  faith  by  a  vote  of  110  to  20.  The 
minority  of  that  General  Conference  withdrew  and  organ- 
ized another  General  Conference,  declaring  its  adherence  to 
the  old  constitution  and  confession.  Each  party  having 
representatives  in  the  local  society'  elected  trustees  accord- 
ing to  the  rules  and  discipline  of  the  detioniination.  The 
trustees  representing  the  minority  party  brought  an  action 
against  the  majority  trustees  to  obtain  the  church  property. 
It  appeared  that  after  the  adoption  of  the  revised  constitn- 
tion  and  confession  of  faith  in  1880  there  was  no  change  in 
the  teaching  of  doctrines  or  beliefs  of  the  denomination 
which  were  the  same  as  those  taught  prior  to  that  date.  The 
amended  constitution  and  confession  of  faith  apju-oved  by 
the  vote  taken  in  November,  1888,  and  ratified  and  declared 
adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  1889,  became  the  only 
constitution  and  confession  of  faith  of  the  denomination. 
Lamb  v  Cain,  120  Ind.  480. 

852 


UNITED  BKKTHKEX   IN  CllKlST  85:; 

A  church  was  erected  in  Sparta  in  187.j,  and  a  parsonage 
in  1880.  The  defendants  in  November,  181)1,  by  foree  broke 
into  the  church,  removed  the  lock  therefrom,  and  since  such 
date  have  so  retained  tlie  property.  In  1802  the  defendants 
took  forcible  possession  of  the  parsonage  of  said  church, 
and  have  continuously  held  possession  thereof.  This  case 
involved  the  question  as  to  the  validity  of  the  action  of  the 
General  Conference  of  188!)  in  adopting  an  amench'd  consii 
tutiou  and  revised  confession  of  faith,  and  it  was  held,  fol- 
lowing Bear  v  Heasley,  !)8  Mich.  279,  that  the  revised  con- 
stitulion  and  ((nifession  of  faith  were  not  constilntionally 
adopted,  and  were  therefore  invalid.  Lcinp  v  Raven,  li:i 
Mich.  'Mi). 

Amending-  Constitution,  1885-1889.  The  General  Conferences 
of  1885  and  1880  were  regular  and  properly  constituted 
according  to  the  law  of  the  church.  The  constitution  could 
be  amended,  and  the  confession  of  faitli  revised  at  the  same 
time,  as  they  were,  in  fact,  amended  and  revised  in  1889. 
Tins  amendment  and  revision  were  regular  ami  in  substan- 
tial conqdiance  with  tlie  law  of  the  denomination.  The 
revised  confession  of  faith  is  not  in  conflict  with  the  original 
confessicm,  and  does  not  constitute  a  .serious  de])arture  from 
tlie  ancient  landmarks  of  tlie  cliurch.  (Jriggs  v  Middaiigh, 
10  Ohio  Dec.  043. 

Canada.  Brewster  v  TIendershot,  27  On t.  App.  (Can.)  2:52. 
considers  tlie  division  of  the  I'liiied  Hretliren  denomination 
in  Canada.  According  to  the  statement  of  facts  in  the  case, 
it  seems  that  the  action  arose  out  of  the  disitute  "annnigst 
the  members  of  the  religions  society  known  as  the  Fnited 
Brethren  in  (.'hrist,  which  in  ISSO  en  Im  inn  led  in  llic  with- 
drawal of  a  small  section  from  the  main  body.  TlHtsi'  re- 
maining, rejn-esenting  the  great  majority  of  the  members, 
have  become  known  as  the  Libei'als;  those  withdrawing 
were  for  some  time  known  as  the  Radicals,  bnt  tlu'y  have 
now  assumed  the  title  of  Conservatives.  The  dilTcivnces 
between  these  two  sections  s(»on  extcndcti  lo  (pirslions  re- 
lating to  the  lillc  of  pi'opcrly  licld    lor   llic  use  ami   licnclit 


mi        Tiir:  cinil  law  a.\i>  tiii:  ciirKfii 

of  llio  clmrcli,  and  resort  was  liad  to  llie  courts.  Suits  were 
instituted  in  the  courts  of  several  of  the  States  of  the  (.'nion, 
an<l  in  evei-y  instance  exc«']>t  (Uie  the  courts  resolved  that  the 
liherals  represented  the  church  and  were  entitled  to  the 
church  property." 

The  jtresent  case  involves  the  rij^ht  to  a  parcel  of  land  in 
the  viilajje  of  Stevensville,  in  the  county  of  Welland,  with 
a  church  building  erected  thereon.  The  land  was  conveyed 
to  trustees  of  tiie  Tnited  l^retliren  in  Christ  "in  trust  for  the 
United  Brethren  in  Christ  forever."  The  ijlaintilFs  repre- 
sent the  Liberals,  and  the  defendants  the  Radicals,  or  Con- 
servatives. Since  the  division  in  1(S80  the  church  building 
had  been  occupied  by  the  Radicals  subsequently  known  as 
the  Conservatives.  On  the  trial  it  was  established  by  admis- 
sion that  there  was  then  no  confjrejjation  of  Liberals  at 
Stevensville,  and  that  the  i»laintitl's  trustees  were  a])pointed 
b}'  the  yearlj^  conference  of  the  United  Brethren  Church  for 
Canada,  and  also  by  resohition  of  the  Qinirterly  Conference 
of  the  circuit  to  which  Stevensville  belongs,  and  not  by  the 
congregation  at  Stevensville.  The  court  says,  citing  Itter 
v  How'e,  23  Out.  A.  R.  250,  that  the  plaintiffs  represent  the 
denomination  known  as  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ.  Two 
of  the  defendants  were  also  two  of  the  trustees  to  whom  the 
title  to  the  property  was  originally  conveyed.  The  court 
said  the  title  to  the  property  was  in  these  two  defendants 
as  surviving  trustees,  and  although  they  had  withdrawn 
from  the  original  denomination,  they  were  bound  to  hold 
and  administer  the  property  on  behalf  of,  and  for  the  i)ur- 
poses  of  their  cestuis  que  trust  of  that  denomination,  and 
not  for  those  who,  though  calling  themselves  by  the  name 
of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ,  are  not  that  body.  The 
persons  who,  calling  themselves  Radicals,  withdrew  from 
the  original  denomination  had  no  authority  to  consider 
themselves  the  true  church.  The  plaintitrs.  and  those  in 
harmony  with  them  have  been  adjudged  to  be  the  church, 
and  as  such  entitled  to  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  property 
held  for  it,  and  there  being  no  congregation  at  Stevensville, 


UNITED  BKKTHKEN   IN  CHRIST  855 

the  court,  nmler  the  Unlaiio  statute,  dirctted  tliat  the  pro- 
ceedings be  taken  for  the  appointment  of  trustees  by  the 
court. 

Division.  Trior  to  May  13,  1881),  the  church  of  tlie  United 
Brethren  in  Christ  was  a  united  single  ecclesiastical  organ- 
ization, governed  by  a  system  of  judicatories,  consisting  of 
the  official  board  having  authority  in  and  over  a  particuUir 
congregation ;  (Quarterly  and  Annual  Conferences  having 
jurisdiction  over  the  churclies  within  a  particuhir  territory, 
and  a  General  Conference,  composed  of  representatives 
elected  by  the  Annual  Conference,  whicli  liad  jurisdiction 
over  all.  A  division  occurred  in  the  General  Conference  of 
1889,  and  a  small  minority  withdrew  from  the  place  in  which 
the  Conference  was  in  session,  and  organized  themselves 
into  a  General  Conference  and  claimed  to  be  the  true  and 
only  organization  having  valid  succession  and  authority 
as  the  General  Conference  of  the  church.  This  division  ex- 
tended into  many  of  the  Annual  Conferences  and  congrega- 
tions. Those  thus  withdrawing  were  in  large  part  a  party 
which,  in  the  United  Church,  had  been  known  as  ^'Radicals," 
and  those  remaining  were  called  "Liberals."  The  voluntary 
religious  society,  called  the  church  of  the  United  Brethren 
in  Christ,  was  organized  in  the  year  1800,  or  about  that  time. 
No  creed  or  formal  confession  of  faith  was  adopted  until 
1815,  when  the  General  Conference  of  that  year  adopted 
and  promulgated  the  instrument  called  the  Old  Confession 
of  Faith.  In  1S41  (he  General  Conference  of  that  year 
adopted  an  instrument  for  the  government  of  the  church, 
being  the  body  of  organic  hiw  called  the  Old  Constitution. 
That  constitution  was  never  submitted  to  the  mendiers  of 
the  society  for  their  adoj)tion  or  a])])roval,  and  was  the  act  of 
the  General  Conference  alone,  a  body  then  coinpose<l  of  a 
snuill  number  of  clergymen,  rei»resentatives  ()f  the  Annual 
Conferences  by  whom  they  had  been  elected.  The  constitu- 
tion of  1841  was  adojtted  by  the  General  (\)nference  of  that 
year.  It  was  not  authorized  by  any  direct  delegati<)n  of 
authority,   nor  sanctioned   by   any   subsetpient    vote  of    the 


sni;        TIM':  <'i\iL  LAW  AM)  'I'm;  rniKMu 

iiiciiilH'rs.  Ndlliiiii;  iiioic  <l»';irl\  ilciiioiisl  r;ih's  tlic  sii|iiriiM' 
;nilli(tiil y  chiiiiK'd  ;iii(l  cxci'cistMl  hy  llieOener;il  ('oiilVi-cnco 
lli:iii  this  fjict  llnil  il  iiiiiioscd  :i  constitutioTi  jiiid  coiifcssioii 
of  f;iitli  upon  llic  clmi'cli  willioiil  spcciMl  Jiiitliorily  tlicrctd- 
Inic  ((nilVncd,  (tr  siihiiii  1 1  inj;  its  woik  loi'  ;ido|tti()ii  or  icjcc- 
lioii  hy  till'  iii('iiilK'rslii|).  '^riiis  (•(nislilutioii  i)i-ovi(l<'(l  tlijit 
llici'c  sliould  he  no  ;ilt('i-;i tion  of  it  except  \)\  the  I'efjuesl  oC 
two  lliiids  of  llie  sociely.  and  liie  same  constitution  proliil)- 
ite«l  the  adoption  (tl  any  rule  or  ordinance  altei-in^'  or  doin<^ 
away  wilii  the  confession  of  faith  as  it  then  stood.  Some 
phin  hein^  necessary  in  order  to  carry  into  effect  these  con- 
stitutional ]»i'ovisions,  it  was  competent  for  a  Cleneral  Ton- 
ference  to  formulate  such  plan.  Whether  lay  assent  should 
precede  or  follow  action  by  the  Conference  was  not  of  the 
essence  of  the  matter.  Neither  was  it  vital  that  such  lay 
concurrence  should  be  indicated  by  vote  or  by  petition.  The 
General  Conference  of  1885  adopted  a  report  formnlating  a 
|)lan  for  the  sid>missiou  of  (piestions  relating  to  the  altera- 
tion of  the  constitution  and  revision  of  the  confession  of 
faith,  and  ])rescribed  the  method  of  ascertaining  the  opinion 
of  the  society,  and  provided  that  if  two  thir<ls  of  all  the  votes 
cast  should  be  in  t^nor  of  the  i)roposed  alterations,  the 
bishops  should  announce  the  resnlt,  and  the  alteration 
should  thereu]>on  take  effect.  The  (Teneral  Conference  of 
188!)  adopted  a  resolution,  reported  by  a  special  committee, 
confirming  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  of  188,'). 
and  the  commission  created  by  it,  in  submitting  to  the 
society  an  amended  constitution  and  a  revised  confession  of 
faith,  and  declaring  that  such  amended  constitution  and 
new  confession  of  faith  had  been  duly  adopted,  and  were 
in  full  force  and  elfect.  Brundage  v  Deardorf.  02  Fed.  214. 
aft'g  55  Fed.  830. 

Government.  This  church  was  an  or^Lianized  religi(uis 
society  liavinu  ollicial  bodies  for  the  government  of  the 
church,  its  members,  congregations,  and  ollicers.  each  being 
clothed  with  <-ertain  pow«'rs.  as  follows: 

First.      The   official    board    of   each    congregation,    which 


UNiTi:i'  i;ki;'i"iikk.\  ix  ciiinsT  sn? 

meets  inoiitlily  jumI  traiisjuts  llic  Itusiiicss  ni  the  <()ii«;i-(';;a- 
tions.  It  c<jusists  of  the  i-ct-o-^iiizcd  iircnclici-s.  c^xlMtrtcrs, 
leaders,  stcwjiids.  ;iii<l  liustccs,  and  Simdav  sdidol  s\i|i('iiii- 
teiKlenls,  wlut  ivsidc  witliiii  llif  h<tniid>  ol  the  (•(»iij;iH'j;a(  ion, 
or  hold  iii('iMh('islii]»  Ihcicin. 

Second.  TIic  (^uailcilv  ( "onrciciKc  i(iiii|Miscd  ol  ihc  |»re- 
sidiiiji'  ehU'i-  of  the  district  and  thi*  jircaciu'r  in  cliar^ic  aii<i 
recogiii/.ed  ])ri'achi*rs,  exliortcM-s,  clas^  leaders,  stewards,  trus- 
tees, and  Sunday  school  snperinteiidents.  wiio  reside  within 
the  district,  or  hold  nieiidtership  therein.  It  meets  <inarlerly, 
and  amonj^  other  things  appoints  trustees  ot  tiie  nieetinj;- 
houses,  who  hohl  durini:  the  ph'asnre  of  the  (^narteiMy  Con- 
ference. 

Third.  The  .Annual  Con  Terence  which  meets  yearly,  is 
composed  of  the  elders,  and  licentiate  preachers  who  liave 
been  received  by  the  Annual  Conference  in  each  <liviii(t.  mid 
is  presided  over  by  the  bisliop  of  the  church. 

Fourth.  The  General  Conference,  which  meets  every  lour 
years,  composed  of  elders  elected  by  the  church  mendters  in 
every  Conference  district  throughout  the  societ;) . 

The  official  board  is  subordinate  to  the  Quarterly  Confer- 
ence, the  Quarterly  Conference  to  the  Annual  Conference, 
and  the  Annual  to  the  General  Conference,  the  last  being 
the  highest  legislative  and  judicial  body  of  the  church. 

Some  time  prior  to  the  year  1800  the  church  of  the  United 
Brethren  in  Christ  was  organized  as  a  religious  society.  No 
General  Conference  of  the  church  was  he^ld  until  lSir»,  when 
on  the  0th  of  .lune  of  that  year  the  first  General  Conference 
was  held  at  Mt.  Pleasant  in  Pennsylvania,  in  pursuance  ol' 
a  call  which  had  before  tiial  time  been  made.  This  Confer- 
ence formulated  a  Discipline  which  contained  liie  rules  and 
doctrine  or  confession  of  faith  of  the  church.  Some  modili- 
cations  in  the  confessicm  of  faith  were  made  by  subseipient 
General  (.Conferences  until  1X85.  The  confession  of  faith  was 
not  submitted  to  the  mend)eis  of  the  chuich  for  ap|»roval. 

The  (Jeneral  Confei-ence  of  IS  1 1  adojited  a  new  const  it  n 
tion.     The  constitution    was  not    submitted    to   the  nuMnbers 


sr)S        Tino  (^i\'ii.  LAW  and  tfii:  cik  imii 

of  (lie  cliiircli  lor  ;i|ipr(»\  ;il.  Tlic  (JcriciMl  ConlVreiice  ol'  ISS") 
ji]»i)oiiite<l  a  coiimiillcc  on  revision  wliicli  at  tlio  sjiine  Con- 
fortMice  i>reseiil('(l  a  irporl  rccoinnu'ndin;;  a  revision  ol"  the 
coiistitutioii,  and  also  of  jlie  confession  of  faitli.  On  the 
adoption  of  this  report  a  conunisslon  was  a|)pointed  willi 
power  to  pre]»are  a  i)lan  for  suhniittinj^  the  jtroposed  revised 
<onstltntion  and  confession  of  faith  to  the  niendiers  of  the 
(lunch  i)rior  to  the  next  OtMieral  Conference.  The  plan 
ad()j)ted  reqnired  the  submission  of  the  question  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  church  in  November,  1888.  The  i»lan  was  sub- 
mitted. 

The  total  enrollment  of  members  of  the  church  at  that 
time  was  204,517.  Of  this  number  only  54,3(i0  voted  either 
way  on  the  revision  plan.  Nearly  the  entire  vote  cast  was 
in  favor  of  the  revision.  The  General  Conference  of  1885 
had  provided  that  the  revision  should  be  deemed  adopted  if 
approved  by  two  thirds  of  all  the  votes  cast  on  the  proposi- 
tion. The  actual  aflSrmative  vote  was  much  more  than  two 
thirds  of  the  votes  cast,  but  much  less  than  two  thirds  of 
the  entire  church  membersliip.  The  vote  was  ratified  and 
approved  by  the  General  Conference  of  1889,  and  by  its  direc- 
tion the  bishops  issued  a  i^roclamation  on  the  lOtli  of  May, 
1889,  announcing  the  adoption  of  the  revised  constitution 
and  confession  of  faith. 

The  vote  of  approval  in  the  General  Conference  of  188!) 
was  110  in  favor  of  the  revision  and  20  against  it.  A  minor- 
ity withdrew  and  organized  another  General  Conference, 
transacted  business,  claimed  to  be  the  true  General  Confer- 
ence, and  declared  its  adiierence  to  the  old  constitution  and 
confession  of  faith. 

The  majority,  continuing  the  General  Conference,  adoi)ted 
resolutions  declaring,  among  other  things,  that  the  minority 
had,  by  the  withdrawal,  separated  themselves  from  the 
church  and  ceased  to  be  mend)ers  of  it.  The  minority  were 
known  as  the  Radical  party,  and  the  majority  as  the  Liberal 
party. 

The  Indiana  court  held  that,  for  the  i)urpose  of  consider- 


UNITED  BKIOTHREN  IX  CUKIST  S5U 

iii<;  llie  question  of  an  a])proval  of  the  coustitulion  l>y  tlie 
required  percentage  of  the  vote,  the  whole  number  of  votes 
cast  must  be  considered  as  including;  all  the  legal  voters, 
observing  that  any  other  rule  would  be  iinitracticablc  and 
would  lead  to  endless  confusion  and  contention.  The  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  188!)  determined  and  declared  the  adop- 
tion of  the  revised  constitution  and  confession  of  faith. 
This  was  the  highest  declaration  that  could  be  made  by  the 
church.  The  General  Conference  had  power  to  make  this 
determination,  and  the  civil  courts  were  bound  by  such 
adjudication.  The  court  held  tliat  the  constitution  and 
confession  of  faith  adopted  in  1S80  became  the  true  constitu- 
tion and  confession  of  faith  of  the  denomination,  and  the 
members  of  the  denomination  who  adhered  to  this  constitu- 
tion and  confession  constituted  the  true  church,  and  those 
who  rejected  this  action  by  the  General  Conference  of  l.ssi) 
became  seceders.  Lamb  v  Cain,  129  lud,  480.  See  also 
Philomath  College  v  Wyatt,  27  Or.  .'iDO,  where  it  was  held 
that  members  of  the  church  who  had  joined  it  since  the  adop- 
tion of  the  constitution  of  1841  are  presumed  to  know  the 
contents  of  the  constitution,  and  to  have  assented  to  it, 
and  were  bonn<l  by  it.  Mend)ers  who  joined  i)ri()r  to  1841, 
and  remained  in  the  church  were  bound  by  the  constitution. 
History.  This  church  originated  in  a  voluntary  associa- 
tion of  Trotestants  of  various  denominations  at  some  period 
during  the  eighteenth  century ;  and  its  original  creed  was 
simply  that  of  the  orthodox  I'rotestant  churches  generally, 
but  allowing  div<'rgencies  in  niatt<'rs  where  they  dilfered. 
It  receives  its  first  organization  from  a  (Ntiifcvence  of  its 
ministers  held  at  Baltimore.  Maiyland.  in  (lie  year  17S!>. 
Its  first  (Jeneral  Cotifeivuce  was  liehl  at  Ml.  Pleasant, 
Pennsylvania,  in  1815.  at  wliicli  time  a  form  of  IHscipline 
and  a  confession  of  faith  were  ad<»pte(l.  I'jt  to  this  time 
the  church  was  without  any  foiinal  I)iseii)line  or  confession 
of  faith,  nor  until  the  year  1811  did  it  have  any  constitution. 
A  constitution  was  adojited  by  llie  (leneral  Conference  of 
1841. 


SCO  Till':   CINIL    LAW   ANI>   Till:   ('IirKM'lI 

Al  tlic  ( Iciicr;!  1  ( '(Mirciciicc  ol'  ISSK  ;i  new  const  i  1  lit  ion  wn<l 
a  revised  confession  of  faith  were  adopted  \t\  a  vote  of  110 
to  20.  Therenjjon  the  minority  asseinl)led  in  another  part 
of  the  city,  (York,  Pennsylvania)  and  nmh'rtook  to  carry 
on  the  session  of  the  Conference,  claiming  that  it  liad  ex- 
ceeded its  powers,  and  that  tlie  other  «lelegates,  hy  their 
ilU'jial  action  in  adoi)ting  and  adhering  to  the  amende<l  con- 
stitntion  and  revised  confession,  had  al)andoned  the  chnrch 
of  the  United  Bretliren  in  CMirist  and  organized  another 
and  distinct  chnrch.  Both  organizations  continned  to  use 
the  old  name;  and  their  resjtective  adherents  have  come  to 
])e  called,  those  of  the  majority  organization  "Liberals," 
those  of  the  minority  "Radicals."  Horsman  v  Allen,  121) 
Cal.  i:il. 

History  and  Form  of  Government.  In  Bear  v  lleasley,  98 
Mich.  27!),  it  was  said  that  this  church  was  originated 
nearly  a  century  and  a  half  ago,  but  it  had  no  written  con- 
fession of  faith  until  1815,  when  its  General  Conference, 
held  in  I'euusylvania,  adopted  one.  This  confession  of  faith 
was  recognized  and  adhered  to  as  containing  the  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  the  church  until  1889.  The  church 
had  no  written  constitution  till  1S:>7,  when  a  General  Con- 
ference, held  at  Germantown,  Ohio,  formulated  and  unani- 
mously adopted  one.  The  members  of  that  Conference 
doubted  their  authority  to  adopt  a  constitution,  and  there- 
fore the  Conference  issued  a  circular  to  give  notice  to  tlie 
church  throughout  the  nation  that  "we  intend  to  present  a 
memorial  to  the  next  General  Conference,  praying  them  to 
ratify  the  constitution  now  adopted."  The  Conference  met 
(piadrennially,  and  when  it  assembled  in  1841  it  appears 
to  have  ignored  entirely  the  constitution  of  18:37  and  the 
validity  of  its  adoption  and  adopted  another,  which  is  one  of 
the  subjects  of  this  controversy.  The  regularity  of  the 
adoption  of  this^'onstitution  was  early  questioned  by  some 
members  of  the  church.  It  is  too  late  now,  however,  to  ques- 
tion it,  since  it  was  recognized  and  treated  as  the  organic 
law  of  the  (liiirch  for  nearly  tifty  years.     It  provided  for  a 


UNITEJ)  BKIOTIIKKX    IX  CHRIST  801 

Geueral  Confereuce  to  consist  of  the  l^isliops.  and  (»f  elders 
elected  by  the  members  of  every  Conference  district  throngh- 
out  the  society.  All  ecclesiastical  j^ower  to  make  or  repeal 
any  rule  of  discipline  was  vested  in  this  Confeivnce.  The 
Discipline,  which  was  early  adopted,  made  it  the  duty  of 
the  General  Ccniference  "to  examine  the  administrati<Mi  of 
each  Annual  ConfenMuc,  wliether  it  has  strictly  observed 
I  he  I'ules  and  |)reserved  the  moral  and  doctrinal  piini  i|il»'s 
of  the  Discipline  in  all  its  transactions."  In  IS.s")  the  (Icn 
eral  Conference  adopted  a  resolution  dcclarinji;  the  General 
( 'onference  to  be  the  hiuhest  judicial  authority  of  the  cliurt  h. 
The  General  Conference  is  the  highest  judicatoiy  of  the 
church,  and  is  in(ruste<l  with  the  geiuM-al  supervision  of  its 
affairs,  both  temporal  and  spiritual.  In  all  niattei-s.  there- 
fore, in  which  it  has  jurisdiction  its  jud;j;ments  are  bindinj; 
u]»on  the  church,  its  clere\\  mid  its  nuMubers,  and  will  not  be 
reviewed  by  the  civil  courts.  The  relation  between  the  mem- 
bers of  this  association  is  one  of  contract,  and  the  coirfes 
sion  of  faith  and  the  constitution  constitute  the  terms  of 
the  a<i,reement,  which  is  bindinji  upon  all.  An  amcMulment 
of  the  constitution  of  a  society  must  be  ado]»ted  in  act-ord 
aiH-e  with  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  in  foi-ce  at  tin' 
time  of  smh  adoption  respectinii'  such  aniciidiuent  ;  oilier 
wise  it  is  invalid.     See  also  Russie  v  l>ra/.7.ell,   ll'S  Mo.  It:'.. 

Majority's  Right.  A  division  of  the  society  occurred  in 
consequence  of  diiTerences  ai-ising  fi-oiii  I  lie  a<loptioii  of  the 
new  constilution  and  revised  c(uifession  (»f  faith  by  the  (Jen 
eral  Conference  in  ISS!).  lOacli  party  to  the  action  claimed 
title  to  the  local  |)i-operty,  because,  as  alleged,  it  represented 
the  tnu'  church.  The  majority  was  in  j»ossession  of  the 
pi-operly.  The  mincu-ity  based  its  claim  to  the  prop«'rty 
on  the  j;rouiid  that  the  socalled  revised  cons!  it  ut  ion  ami 
c<Mifession  of  faith  were  void. 

The  propei-ly  in  (piestion  was  deeded  lo  ilie  trustees  of 
the  local  s<Miety  in  ISCd.  h  was  held  thai  llioimli  there  lie 
a  change  in  clinich  |Mility.  or  alteration  in  the  expressed 
form  of  faith,  if  the  substantial  Iheolouical  dtulrine  and  the 


sdL'        Tin;  ("i\iL  LAW  .wh  'riii;  <iii  imii 

^«'iH'i';il  |»()lily  l»c  r('(;iiiic(|,  llicic  is  no  such  tlcpiut  iirf  ;is 
wonhl  anioniit  to  ;i  misuse  or  perversion  of  the  trust.  'Flic 
]»riu(iples  of  Iho  <kMioiiiiiiJition,  its  j^enoral  ])olity  ami 
articles  of  faith,  were  not  iiialerially  altered  by  the  action 
of  the  General  Conference  of  1880  in  adopting  the  new 
constitution  and  revised  confession  of  faith,  and  this  action 
did  not  constitute  a  departure  from  the  established  faith 
and  policy  of  the  denomination.  The  majority  of  the  local 
church  was  held  entitled  to  i)ossession  of  the  y)roperty. 
Kuns  V  Kobertson,  154  111.  ^M)4.  See  also  (Iriggs  v  Middau<ji;h, 
10  Ohio  Dec.  643;  Schlichter  v  Keiter,  156  Pa.  St.  111>; 
Horsman  v  Allen,  129  Cal.  I'il  ;  Brundage  v  Deardorf,  02 
Fed.  214  aff'g.  55  Fed.  839;  Itter  v  Howe,  2.3  Out.  App.  Rep. 
(Can.)  256. 

Philomath  College.  An  action  was  brought  by  the  college 
(Philomath  ('ollege  v  Wyatt,  27  Or.  ."{OO )  which  involved 
the  status  of  the  religious  bodies  from  wliich  the  parties 
claimed  to  derive  their  title  and  their  right  to  hold  the  col- 
lege i)roperty.  P]ach  set  of  trustees  was  elected  by  an 
Annual  Conference  claiming  to  be  the  Annual  Conference 
of  the  said  church  in  Oregon,  and  the  decision  of  the  case 
turned  on  the  question  which  was  the  true  Annual  Confer- 
ence; and  this  decision  depended  on  the  question  whether 
the  revised  confession  of  faith  and  amended  constitution  of 
the  church  had  been  regularly  adoitted,  and  were  in  force. 

This  confession  of  faith  and  amended  constitution  had 
been  api)roved  by  more  than  two  thirds  of  the  members  of  the 
church  voting  thereon,  in  November,  1888,  according  to  a 
plan  submitted  by  a  revision  comjuission  created  by  the 
General  Conference  of  1885.  The  result  of  this  vote  was 
reported  to  the  General  Conference  of  1880,  and  it  was 
approved.  Following  this  ratification  the  proclamation  was 
issued  by  the  bisho])s  announcing  the  adoption  of  the  revised 
confession  of  faith  and  amended  constitution,  which  there- 
upon became  operative  and  in  full  force.  The  plaintiff,  the 
college,  adhered  to  the  revised  confession  of  faith  and 
amended  constitution  as  approved  and  proclaimed  in  1880. 


UNITED  BRI:TUK1:N   IX  CUKiST  8(i:{ 

The  defendaiil.s  a(lht'ir<l  to  the  confession  of  faitli  and  con- 
stitution as  they  existed  j)iior  to  1881).  The  college  was 
incorporated  under  an  Oregon  statute  in  18G5,  as  a  general 
literaiy  and  educational  institution,  under  the  auspices  of 
the  church  known  as  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ.  Tlie 
trustees  of  the  institution  were  chosen  by  the  Oregon  ('(in- 
ference of  the  church.  The  decree  sustained  the  pro( ceding 
of  1S8J)  a<lopting  the  revise<l  confession  of  faith  and  jimended 
constitution.  This  decree  was  allirnicd  on  jippcal  by  a 
divided  court. 


UNITED  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH 

Organization,  864. 
Minority's  right,  864. 

Organization.  Tlie  TTiiited  rresbyteriaii  Church  was 
foiiiicd  ill  the  year  1847  by  the  niiion  of  two  churdies  whidi 
had  separated  from  the  Established  Church  many  years  be- 
fore, and  were  known  as  the  United  Associated  Synod  and 
the  Kelief  Church.  General  Assembly  of  Free  Church  of 
Scotland  v  Overtoun,  (1904)  Law  Rep.  Appeal  Cases,  p.  515. 

This  church  was  formed  in  1858  by  the  union  of  the  "Asso- 
ciate Presbyterian  Cliurch  of  North  America"  and  tlie  "Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Church  of  North  America."  Wilson  v  Liv- 
ingston, 99  Mich.  5!)4. 

Minority's  Right.  A  deed  conveyed  property  to  certain 
persons  as  trustees  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  IMeas- 
ant  Divide,  sid)ordinate  to  the  Associate  Presbyterv  of 
Iowa,  subordinate  to  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America. 
After  the  union  of  the  Associate  and  the  Associate  Reformed 
Churches,  a  majority  of  the  congregation  at  Pleasant  Divide 
refused  to  assent  to  the  union,  wliile  a  minority  organized 
as  a  United  Presbyterian  Church  under  the  union.  It  was 
held  that  the  trustees  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church 
while  representing  a  minority  of  the  members  of  the  former 
association  were  trustees  named  in  the  deed,  and  were  en- 
titliMl  to  the  possession  of  the  property  described  therein. 
McBride  v  Porter,  17  la.  204.  See  Associate  Reformed 
Church. 


864 


UNIVERSALISTS 

Action,  how  to  be  brought,  865. 

Bequest  sustained,  865. 

General  convention,  865. 

Pews,  by-laws,  865. 

Stock,  subscription,  866. 

Taxation,  866, 

Transfer  tax,  866. 

Trust  sustained,  866. 

Unincorporated  society,  conveyance  directed,  867. 

Action,  How  to  Be  Brought.  In  an  action  l»y  the  society  by 
name,  it  was  held  that  the  action  shonid  have  been  bn»nght 
in  the  name  of  the  wardens  and  vesliynien,  or  trnstees  as 
such  of  the  dmrch,  nanun^'  il.  An  action  in  the  name  of  the 
society  was  iin])roi»erly  brought,  hrniuheller  v  l-'irst  rni- 
versalist  Chnrch,  Tiercetou,  45   hid.  I'TT). 

Bequest  Sustained.  Teslator  made  a  be«inest  to  the  I'ni- 
versalisl  religions  den(»niiiiation  in  Ihe  connty  to  constitute 
a  permanent  fund,  (he  use  to  be  ai»|»lied  annually  Wn-  the 
sni)port  of  that  <len(»niiiuiti<ni.  Tlie  be(juest  was  ludd  to  be 
snfiiciently  certain  and  definite,  and  the  court  provided  for 
trustees  to  administer  the  fund,  b^irst  (niversalist  Society, 
Xoi-th  Adams  and  otiu'rs  v  Fitcdi.  S  (iray   (Mass.  i    121. 

General  Convention.  The  ('niversalist  (ieneral  Convenlion 
was  incorporated  and  organized  under  the  laws  of  the  State 
of  New  York.  A  Virginia  will  contained  a  devis»'  of  a  re 
mainder  to  the  (Jeneral  Convention,  the  land  (o  l)e  sttid  by 
the  convention  and  the  money  applied  in  mission  worU  in 
the  T'nited  States.  The  devise  was  sustained,  and  the  ctui- 
vention  was  held  capable  of  taking  and  Inddin;;  the  property, 
and  selling  it  for  tlir  |mii  poses  specilicil  in  the  w  ill.  .Jordan 
v  Universalis!  (ienci-al  Convention  Trustees,  H»T  \a.  TH. 

Pews,    By-Laws.      This    society    whicii    was    incor|>orated, 

865 


8(;(;        TUio  CIVIL  law  and  ^riii':  cHrucii 

orecte<l  ji  honsi*  of  \vorNlii|»  mikI  sold  |k'\\s  inidcr  a  contract 
by  whicli  they  were  to  remain  the  pioitcrly  of  the  pnrchaHers 
so  lonj^  as  all  assessments  thereon  for  expenses  of  the  church 
wore  regularly  jtaid,  hut  on  default  for  om;  year  the  pew- 
was  to  revert  to  the  society.  Afterward  by-laws  were 
adopted  rejjiilatinj;  the  ])roceedin<rs  relative  to  the  assess- 
nient  and  collection  of  taxes.  Suhsecpiently  the  name  of  the 
society  was  changed.  It  was  held  that  the  society  had 
])ower  to  make  the  by-laws,  and  that  a  jierson  who  purchased 
a  i)ew  after  the  change  of  name,  could  not  ol)je<t  to  the  pro- 
ceeding by  which  the  name  had  been  changed.  Mussey  v 
Bulfinch  Street  Society,  1  Cush.   (Mass.)   US. 

Stock,  Subscription.  The  society  made  a  by-law  relative  to 
subscriptions  to  stock  in  support  of  the  church,  tixing  the 
price  of  each  share  at  ^25,  with  a  provision  that  a  person 
paying  |3  more  might  receive  a  redeemable  certificate.  The 
by-law  was  held  valid,  and  a  holder  of  a  certificate  issued 
in  accordance  with  the  by-law  was  entitled  to  recover  the 
par  value  of  the  stock.  Davis  v  Proprietors  Second  Uni- 
versalist  Meeting  House,  8  Mete.  (Mass.)  321. 

Taxation.  After  the  assessment  for  a  given  year  in  which 
the  church  had  been  exempted,  it  ceased  to  be  used  as  a 
church.  It  was  held  that  the  board  of  revision  had  a  right 
to  add  the  property  to  the  receiver's  list,  charged  with  a 
just  proportion  of  taxes,  corresponding  to  the  unexpired 
fraction  of  the  current  year.    Moore  v  Taylor,  147  Pa.  481. 

In  Henderson  v  Erskine,  Smith's  N.  H.  Rep.  36.  it  was 
held  that  Universalists  did  not  constitute  a  separate  sect 
entitling  them  to  exemption  from  taxation,  for  the  support 
of  a  Congregational  minister. 

Transfer  Tax.  A  devise  to  a  religious  society  of  land  and 
buildings  thereon,  to  be  used  exclusively  as  a  parsonage, 
was  not  subject  to  the  succession  tax  under  the  Massa- 
chusetts act  of  181)1.  First  Universalist  Society,  Salem,  v 
Bradford,  185  Mass.  310. 

Trust  Sustained.  A  testator,  by  his  will,  bequeathed  a  fund 
to  trustees  to  be  used  for  the  erection  of  a  hall  in  Sparta  for 


UNIVEIISALTSTS  867 

the  piirpose  of  establisbiiij^  ii  L'liiver.salist  churcli  in  that 
town.  The  trustees  were  required  to  secure  the  incorpora- 
tion of  a  Universalist  society  under  tlie  New  Jersey  law,  and 
erect  a  hall  within  one  year  after  the  testator's  death,  ami 
in  case  of  a  failure  so  to  erect  the  building  the  fund  should 
revert  to  (he  testator's  estate.  By  a  codicil  it  was  jtrondcd 
that  the  fund  was  to  be  paid  over  to  certain  trustees  tiicrcin 
named,  after  they  should  have  established  a  society  (d'  thr 
Universalist  denomination  in  S])arta,  an<l  also  should  have 
been  incorjjorated,  and  a  part  of  the  fund  was  available  in 
the  discretion  of  the  society  for  the  employment  of  a  Uni- 
versalist i)reacher.  These  provisions  were  also  to  be  carried 
out  within  a  year  after  the  testator's  death.  It  was  held 
that  the  executors  having  refused  to  pay  over  the  fund,  the 
trustees  named  in  the  will  and  codicil  were  not  in  default, 
and  the  bequest  had  not  been  defeated  by  any  negligence  on 
their  part.  The  society  was  incorporated  within  a  year  after 
the  testator's  death.  Cory  Universali.st  Society  v  Beatty,  28 
N.  .T.  Kq.  570. 

Unincorporated  Society,  Conveyance  Directed.  Land  was 
conveyed  to  three  trustees  in  trust  for  an  nnincorjiorated 
religious  society.  A  church  edifice  was  afterward  erected 
on  the  land,  and  the  society  was  incorporated.  Two  of  the 
trustees  thereui)on  conveyed  the  land  to  the  corporation,  but 
one  of  them  refused  to  execute  a  conveyance.  In  an  action 
brought  to  comjjel  the  conveyance  he  defended  on  the  ground 
that  the  society  was  largely  indebted  for  exi)enses  of  erecting 
the  church  edifice  for  which  he  was  personally  responsible, 
and  he  objected  to  parting  with  the  title  until  the  debts  were 
l)aid.  Notwithstanding  this  situation  tlie  court  ordered  the 
execution  of  a  i>ro]ter  conveyance.  Fourth  Universalist 
l»arish  v  Wensley,  5  Wkly.  Note  Cas.  (l*a.)  273. 


VOTERS 

Assessment,  868. 

Contribution,  868. 

Episcojjulians  at  Congregational  meeting,  869. 

Qualifications,  how  dotermined,  869. 

Qualifications,  how  fixed,  870. 

Quahficalions,  in  general,  870. 

Stated  attendants,  872. 

Withdrawal,  effect,  872. 

Women,  meeting  for  incorporation,  872. 

Assessment.  If  the  law  requires  an  assessment  as  the  basis 
of  a  right  to  vote  at  a  parish  meeting,  the  omission  of  a  i^er- 
son's  name  from  the  assessment  list  deprives  him  of  the  right 
to  vote  even  if  he  has  the  requisite  property.  Sparrow  v 
Wood,  1(1  Mass.  457. 

Contribution.  A  person  whose  right  to  vote  depends  on  his 
contribntion  to  the  church  and  expenses  must  contribute 
to  its  support  according  to  tbe  usages  and  customs  thereof. 
This  undoubtedly  means  substantial  and  vital  aid  and  sup- 
port, material  su])port  without  which  the  organization  can- 
not exercise  its  ordinary  functions  and  perform  its  custom- 
ary and  appro})riate  duties  and  ministrations.  It  means 
the  parting  with,  and  contribution  of,  a  portion  of  one's 
worldly  substance,  in  the  usual  and  customary  way,  to  be 
used  in  meeting  and  defraying  the  expenses  incurred  by  the 
church,  congregation,  or  society  in  the  sui)port  of  public 
and  divine  worship.    People  v  Tuthill,  31  N.  Y.  550. 

In  State  v  Crowell,  9  N.  J.  L.  391,  it  was  held  that  a  per- 
son was  not  entitled  to  vote  as  a  member  of  a  Presbyterian 
congregation,  who  does  not  contribute  his  just  proportion 
according  to  his  own  engagements  or  the  rules  of  that  con- 
gregation, to  all  the  necessary  expenses  of  the  church,  and 
that  an  election  of  trustees  of  a  Presbyterian  Church  made 

868 


VOTERS  stiu 

by  i>ei'.sous  not  being  coutribiitors  to  the  support  of  the 
church  (and  therefore  not  qualitied  by  their  rules  to  vote; 
is  void. 

Episcopalians  at  Con^egational  Meeting.  The  First  Societj' 
of  Chatham,  not  Episcopalian,  was  entitled  lo  Ihe  iiicoiiie 
of  the  proceeds  of  certain  lands  granted  in  .lannary,  1702, 
by  the  town  of  Middletown,  wliicli  tlien  inchnU'd  tlie  town  of 
Chatham  afterward  erected,  such  income  to  he  ajiplied  in 
support  of  schools  or  of  a  minister,  in  the  discretion  of  the 
members  of  the  society.  Subsequently  10piscoi»alians  resid- 
ing in  Chatham  assumed  the  right  to  vote  at  a  meeting  of 
the  First  Society  and  did  vote  to  ai)proi)riate  tlie  income  of 
the  fund  for  tlie  support  of  sdiools.  It  was  hehl  that  the 
Episcopalians  were  not  members  of  the  First  Society,  and 
had  no  right  to  vote  at  a  society  meeting,  and  no  right  to 
any  part  of  the  money  resulting  from  such  original  ai>pro- 
priation  of  land.  Sage,  etc.  Committee  of  the  First  Society, 
Chatliam  V  White,  2  Root  (Conn.)  111. 

Qualifications,  How  Determined.  The  presiding  officer  at  a 
church  election  acts  judicially  in  receiving  a  vote,  and  if 
unchallenged,  the  i)erson  offering  the  vote  is  jnesumed  to 
possess  the  re(piisite  qualifications,  and  after  the  result  of 
the  election  has  been  declared  the  presiding  officer  caiinot 
reconsider  the  niattei-,  determine  that  the  voter  was  not 
qualified,  and  reject  his  vote.  Ke  Williams,  57  Misc.  (N.  V.  I 
327. 

The  society  was  incor]»ora<ed  by  a  charter  which  provided 
that  all  Old  School  rreshylei'ians  were  entith'd  to  member- 
ship, and  that  a<lults  who  Imd,  (hiring  tiie  year  immctiialrly 
prior  to  an  election,  conii-ihnle<l  to  the  sujjjiort  of  the  chnrch 
a  sum  not  less  than  |2  for  a  pew  or  ])ortion  <)f  a  pew  are 
eligible  as  trustees  and  voters  at  sucii  an  election.  Subse- 
quently the  ]>ews  were  made  free  and  there  was  mi  pt-w  rent. 
After  this  change  it  was  held  that  ]»ersoiis  wi're  memlters  of 
the  corporation  and  ilierefoi-e  \ (iters,  who  had,  during  (he 
year  jireceding  an  election,  been  regnlai'  attendants  at  the 
church  services,  and  had  contributed  not  less  than  >^'2  for  it.s 


ST(t  T\\\:  CIN  IL   LAW   A.\h  Till':  <  IUKCII 

sii|»|M)rt.  ( '(Hiiiiioiiw  cnllli  ex  rcl  Scull  \  Mori'isoii,  ]'.',  l'liil;i. 
(I'M.)  v.\ry. 

Aliens  otherwise  (|n;iline(l  were  liel<i  «*iilitlejl  to  vote  at 
elections.  An  inspector  of  election  wjis  held  eligible  lis  a 
candidate.  By-laws  were  sustained  anthorizing  the  j)resi- 
dent  to  a])|K)int  insj)ectors  of  elections,  and  providing  tliat 
tickets  should  c<»ntain  nothing  ])nt  names  of  candidates. 
Common  wealth  v  Woelper,  'A  Ser.  and  R.   (Pa.)  29. 

In  M'llvain  v  Christ  (linrch,  Reading,  8  Phila.  (507),  it 
was  held  that  a  person  was  entitled  to  vote  at  an  election  of 
vestrymen  who  at  any  time  before  the  election  had  taken 
a  i)ew  or  sitting,  and  ])aid  its  rate,  for  the  preceding  year; 
and  it  was  not  necessary  that  the  pew  or  sitting  should 
have  been  taken  and  held  for  the  year  preceding  the  election. 

Qualifications,  How  Fixed.  If  the  qualifications  of  voters 
at  the  election  of  otficers  of  a  religions  society  are  not  pre- 
scribed by  statute,  such  qualifications  may  be  determine<l  by 
each  denomination.  American  Primitive  Society  v  Pilling, 
4  Zab.  (N.  J.)  65:i 

Qualifications,  in  General.  See  People  ex  rel  Sturges  v 
Keese,  27  Hun  (N.  Y. )  483,  holding  that  the  New  York  act 
of  1868  Ch.  803,  amending  former  statutes  relating  to  the 
qualifications  of  voters  did  not  apply  to  existing  corpora- 
tions unless  the  provisions  of  the  act  were  adopted  by  the 
vestry.  These  provisions  had  not  been  adopted  by  this 
society. 

Upon  questions  affecting  the  pro])erty  of  a  religious 
corporation,  the  right  to  vote  thereon  should  not  be  con  lined 
to  persons  only  who  are  members  of  the  church.  Those  who 
have  contributed  to  its  support,  although  not  mend»ers, 
should  be  allowed  a  voice  in  such  matters.  Niccolls  v  Rugg, 
47  111.  47. 

In  Commonwealth  v  Cain,  5  Ser.  and  R.  (Pa.l  510,  the 
court  sustained  by-laws  limiting  the  right  to  vote  to  persons 
who  had  been  iiKMubers  of  the  society  twelve  months,  and 
l»rolubitiug  ])ers()ns  from  exercising  the  right  who  were  in 
arrears  two  years  on  pew  rents. 


VOTE  lis  S71 

It  havlnji-  hccii  |»i-()vi<le<l  in  the  rourtli  section  of  \\w  ad 
of  incorpoi-atioii  of  Ilic  Cliurcli  of  the  Ilolv  Trinii.v  in  tlwciiv 
of  Philadelphia  ihai  the  iiieiiibers  of  liie  ciuiich  havini;  siil» 
scribed  to  the  biiihliii<^  of  the  same,  or  who  sliail  iiereaflei- 
contribute  not  less  tlian  lOs.  annually  toward  the  suppoi-t 
of  the  church,  shall  meet  at  a  time  designated  in  the  ac  I. 
in  each  year,  at  such  jilace  in  the  said  city  as  shall  be 
apj)oiuted  by  the  trustees,  of  which  notice  to  be  j^iven.  and 
choose  by  ballot  eight  lay  trustees  by  a  majoiity  ol  members 
so  qualified  to  vole;  il  was  held  that  persons  who  only  a 
few  days  before  the  election,  or  less  than  a  yeai-  before  it. 
had  coutributed  10s.  or  more  to  the  support  (tf  the  cliun  h. 
but  who  had  not  for  several  years  before  been  cont libutors, 
were  not  annual  contributors  within  the  meaning  of  the  act, 
and  were  not  entitled  to  vote,  either  at  the  election  for  trus- 
tees, or  at  the  preliminary  meeting  for  the  election  of  (dllcers 
to  conduct  it,  though  their  contributions  were  nuide  with  a 
bona  fide  intention  of  becoming  members  of  the  church. 
Juker  V  Commonwealth  ex  rel  Fisher,  20  Pa.  St.  484. 

In  Weckerly  v  Geyer,  11  S.  ami  K.  (Pa.i  35,  it  api>eared 
that  the  charter  of  a  congregation  was  granted  by  the 
Pennsylvania  pro]>riefoi-s  in  17<>r)  under  which  a  voter  must 
have  been  a  contributing  mend>er  and  a  communicant.  This 
charter  was  confirmed  by  the  assembly  in  1780  with  sonu» 
alterations,  one  of  which  was  that  no  pei-son  should  be 
entitled  to  vote  who  was  under  the  age  of  eighteen  years. 
It  was  held  that  considering  both  charters  together,  a  voter 
must  have  been  a  contributfU",  a  commnnicant.  aini  eigliiceii 
years  of  age. 

The  question  as  lo  the  (pialilicat  ion  of  \uters  at  an  elec- 
tion for  trustees  of  a  religious  society  ari.ses  for  tlecision 
when  the  voter  oilers  his  vole.  If  the  vote  is  not  challenged. 
it  must  be  received;  if  it  is  clialleugtMJ.  the  iiis|>ectors  must 
determine  the  question  of  (pialilicat  ion.  Having  rec«'ived 
the  vote,  the  inspectors  have  decided  the  question,  and  they 
cannot  afterward  disregard  the  vote  on  the  grouml  that  it  is 
illegal,  and  the  inspectors,  at    the  chtse  t>\'  the  |iolls.  ha\in^ 


.S72        'I'lii:  ri\iL  LAW   AM)  'iiii:  ciii  i.'cii 

(■illi\;iss('(l  llic  \()I('S  iiiid  (IccliilHMl  tli:it  ccrl;!!!!  pcisoiis  li:i(| 
icccivcd  ;i  spccilicd  iiiniilK'r,  wliicli  w.is  ;i  |tliir;ilify  of  ;ill  the 
voles  received,  (iiniiol  ;ir(er\v;ir(|  i-cv  icw  tlieir  own  iiction 
ill  receiviiij;  llie  voles  ;nid  make  :i  cerlitieate  <le<lai-iii^,  in 
oH'ecl,  that  eerlain  vot<'s  alle<;ed  to  l»e  east  for  the  siiccj'ssful 
candidates  were  in  fact  iUe^^al.  The  rece]*lioii  of  the  votes 
by  the  insjieclors  was  coiiclnsive  as  to  the  v«)I«M''s  ri<j;ht  to 
vote,  and  sncli  certificate  assniiiing  to  review  and  revise  the 
vote  is  a  nnllitv.    Hartt  v  Harvey,  32  Barb.  ( N.  V.)  55. 

Stated  Attendants.  "A  stated  attendant  is  one  who  at- 
tends statedly  which  is  (hdined  to  be  regnhiid}'  at  certain 
times,  not  occasionally. " 

Re<;nlar  attendance  at  the  stated  times  for  worsliip  as 
established  in  the  cliurcli,  or  societ}'  or  congregation,  as 
distinguishable  from  irregular  or  occasional  attendance,  is 
wliat  is  necessary.  This  attendance  must  be  i>ersoual  and 
cannot  be  suj)i)lied  by  another.  The  regular  attendance  of 
the  wife,  or  other  members  of  the  family,  will  not  answer. 
And  no  amount  of  conti-ibntion  to  the  support  of  the  church 
or  society  can  be  accei)ted  in  lieu  of  this  personal  presence 
statedly. 

J*ersons  who  attend  a  few  times  only  in  the  course  of  the 
year,  as  com]»ared  with  the  nund)er  of  stated  times  for  wor- 
ship within  such  year,  and  at  irregular  and  uncertain  inter- 
vals are  clearly  not  stated  attendants.  Peojde  v  Tuthill, 
31  X.  Y.  550. 

Withdrawal,  Effect.  A  member  of  this  society  withdrew 
thei-efrom,  and  afterward  demanded  the  right  to  vote  at  a 
parish  meeting,  producing  a  certificate  of  the  clerk  of  the 
society  that  he  had  ceased  to  be  a  member  thereof.  It  was 
held  that  until  he  joined  this  society  he  was  subject  to  taxa- 
tion in  the  i)arish,  and  was  a  voter  therein,  and  that  when 
he  ceased  to  be  a  member  of  the  society  his  original  rela- 
tions to  the  ])arish  were  restored  including  the  liability  to 
taxation  and  tlie  right  to  vote.  Oakes  v  Hill,  10  Pick. 
(Mass.)  333. 

Women,    Meeting    for    Incorporation.      The .  certificate    of 


VOTERS  873 

incorporation  recited  that  the  meeting  was  ((niiitoscil  »»r  tlie 
male  members  of  the  society,  but  it  did  not  a]»pear  that  the 
female  members  were  excluded,  or  were  prevented  fnim 
participating  in  the  meeting.  It  was  held  that  tlie  female 
members  of  the  society,  if  any,  must  be  presumed  to  liave 
absented  themselves  from  tlie  meeting;  and  if  they  did,  the 
male  members  were  competent  to  take  the  necessary  pro- 
ceedings for  incorporation.    Lynch  v  Pfeiffer,  110  N.  Y.  33. 


WESLEYAN  METHODISTS 

Bequest  sustained,  874. 

Conference,  powers  rchiting  to  the  trijil  and  suspension  of  a  minister,  874. 

History,  874. 

Member  when  right  of  action  lost,  875. 

Request  Sustained.  Testatrix  gave  certain  property  to  the 
trustees  to  be  ajiplied  according-  to  directions  to  be  given  by 
the  annual  meeting  of  the  ministers  of  the  Wesleyan  Meth- 
odists of  Canada,  including  a  small  annual  payment  to  the 
local  society  for  the  su})port  of  preaching.  The  provision 
in  the  will  did  not  constitute  a  charitable  use,  and  was  there- 
fore valid,  at  least  in  part.  Doe  v  Read,  3  U.  C.  K.  B.  (Can.) 
244. 

Testator  bequeathed  a  fund  to  the  Wesleyan  Methodist 
Society  of  Belturbet,  and  to  the  Wesleyan  Methodist  Society 
of  Ireland.  These  becpiests  were  held  valid.  The  court  said 
that  the  two  societies  named  by  the  testator  in  his  will  were, 
respectively,  the  local  Methodist  Society  of  BeHurbet  and 
the  General  Methodist  Society  of  Ireland.  The  addition  by 
the  testator  of  the  word  "Wesleyan"  did  not  throw  the  least 
doubt  on  his  meaning.    Hadden  v  Dandy,  51  N.  J.  Eq.  154. 

Conference,  Powers  Relating  to  the  Trial  and  Suspension  of  a 
Minister.  The  Conference  liad  power  to  sid)init  to  a  com- 
mittee questions  relating  to  the  conduct  and  trial  of  a  min- 
ister. The  committee  had  power  to  susjumkI  tlie  minister  for 
a  specified  period.  Dempsey  v  North  Michigan  Conference. 
Weslej'an  Methodist  Connection  of  America,  98  Mich.  444. 

History.  A  large  nund)er  of  Wesleynn  Methodist  Associa- 
tions cooperated  in  June,  1S4;>,  in  forming  a  convention  at 
which  a  religious  denomination  was  organized  called  the 
Wesleyan  ^lethodist  Convention  of  America.  The  conven- 
tion adopted  a  Discii)line  and  rules  regarding  the  details  of 

874 


\vksjj:van  mi:tii()I)Ists  sir. 

organization  inclndiii^  Annual  ConrcrciKcs.  aixl  also  a  Gen- 
eral Conference  to  meet  once  in  four  years.  l»e<^inninj;  in  1SI4. 
Smith  V  Bowers,  57  App.  i)iv.  (N.  Y.  i  L*r>2  allinned  171  N.  V. 
GG9. 

Member,  When  Right  of  Action  Lost.  In  Smith  \  r.uwers. 
57  App,  Div.  252,  allirmed  171  X.  V.  in;:),  it  was  licl.l  ili:il 
a  person  wlio  had  for  more  than  a  vear  ceased  to  he  a  staled 
attendant  at  the  servi<-es  of  the  cliur»li  of  which  he  had 
formerly  been  a  member,  and  whose  name  had  heen  dro|t|tcd 
from  the  roll  of  niend)ers,  could  not  nniintain  an  action 
against  the  society,  nor  its  trustees,  to  jtrevent  the  use  of  the 
church  property  for  purjtoses  inconsistent  with  the  discipline 
and  rules  of  the  association. 


WILL 

Auburn  Theological  Seminary,  876. 

Hishop  to  be  appointed,  877. 

Capacity  to  take,  877. 

Conditional  bequest,  877. 

Constitutional  limitation,  877. 

Conveyance,  includes  will,  878. 

Corporation,  bequest  by  nonresident,  878. 

Dissolution  of  society,  effect,  879. 

Foreign  beneficiary,  870. 

Foreign  society,  880. 

Identifying  beneficiary,  880. 

Indefiniteness,  881. 

Intention,  884. 

Legacy  forfeited  by  change  of  doctrine,  885. 

Legislative  sanction,  885. 

Misdescription,  886. 

Parol  evidence,  886. 

Perpetuity,  886. 

Quakers,  yearly  neeting,  void  devise,  886. 

Religion,  advantiement,  886. 

Reward  of  merit,  887. 

Sailors'  Home,  Boston,  Miu'jsachusett.s,  887. 

Slavery  and  intemi)erance,  888. 

Sunday  school,  SSS. 

Testator's  religious  opinions,  888. 

Time  limit,  888. 

Trustee,  will  acknowledging  trust,  892. 

Undue  influence,  892. 

Unincorporated  society,  892. 

Unitarians,  893. 

Ursuline  Community,  893. 

Young  Men's  Christian  Association,  893. 

Auburn  Theological  Seminary.  A  legacy  to  the  Auburn 
Theolojiicnl  Seiiiiiiary,  ]);iyable  on  the  death  of  the  testator's 
daughter  without  lawful  issue,  was  sustained  in  Trustees  of 
Auburn  Tlieological  Seminary  v  Kelloiijj:.  1(»  N.  Y.  S.S.      The 

876 


WILL  877 

seminary  was  authorized  by  its  diailcr  to  take  a  legacy 
for  the  purposes  specilied  in  Ihc  will,  namely,  "to  endow 
a  professorsliij)  in  Ihc  seminary." 

Bishop  to  Be  Appointed.  A  legacy  (in  lOnglandi  for  the 
establishment  of  a  bishoj)  in  America,  not  yet  appointed, 
is  not  void,  but  the  money  was  to  remain  in  court  until  the 
appointment  of  a  bishoj).  Attorney-CJeneral  v  Hishop  of 
Chester,  1  Bro.  C.  Cases  (Eng.)  444. 

Capacity  to  Take.  Testator  made  a  bequest  to  this  .society 
to  be  paid  after  tive  years  from  his  death.  The  fund  be- 
queathed was  larger  than  the  society  was  authorized  to 
receive  at  the  time  of  the  testator's  death,  but  before  the 
first  payment  became  due,  the  Legislatuie  increased  the 
amount  which  the  .society  was  authorized  to  take,  but  it  was 
held  that  I  his  did  not  aid  the  society,  the  watit  of  capacity  at 
the  death  of  the  testator  could  not  be  removed  by  subsecpient 
legislation  ;  such  legislation  could  oidy  be  prosjtective  in  its 
operation.  r''irst  (.'ongregalional  Clinrch,  New  Orleans  v 
Henderson,  I  Kob.  (La.  I  211. 

Conditional  Bequest.  A  gift  to  a  chnrcli  tor  Ihc  purpose  of 
aiding  in  the  payment  of  a  mortgage  on  the  church  |>roperty, 
on  condition  that  the  remaining  amount  of  the  debl  should 
be  raised  within  two  years  after  the  testator's  death,  was 
held  to  be  a  condition  pi-ece<lent  and  the  l)e(|uest  was  invalid. 
Booth  V  Baj)tist  Church  of  Chrisl.  i'onglikeepsie.  r_*(i  N.  V. 
215. 

Constitutional  Limitation.  The  const ihit ion  ol"  Missouri 
made  void  every  gift,  sale,  oi*  devi.se  of  land  exceeding  one 
acre  in  extent  "to  any  minister,  teacher,  or  preacher  of  the 
gospel,  as  such,  or  lo  any  rrligious  seel,  ordci-,  ur  dciiomin.i- 
tion." 

A  devise  to  Ihree  persons  in  trust  lor  a  religions  society 
to  be  organized  and  known  as  SI.  Maiy's  ("hurch,  including 
property  intended  for  a  i-ector's  residence,  the  church  and  a 
school,  exceeding  in  amount  the  (Uie  acre  limited  by  the 
constitution  of  Missouri,  was  held  good  as  to  an  acre. 
Barkley  v  Donnelly,  112  Mo.  Hfll. 


S7S        tin:  ('i\ii.  law  a.\i>  tiii;  cihkcii 

The  coiirl  held  lt»  he  iii\ali<l  ;i  devise  t(»  tlie  socielv  of  ail 
acr(^  of  l;iii(l,  .111(1  a  lM'(|iiesl  siip|)<>se(|  to  he  siillicieiil  to  <'rect 
a  <-Iinr(li  (liei-eoii.  Siicli  devise  and  Itecniesl  wei-e  pioliih- 
iled  l»y  llie  Missouri  const iliitioii.  First  IJaptist  Cliiirch  v 
Robbersoii,  71  Mo.  320. 

A  will  of  testatrix  was  rcj^ularly  admitted  to  probate, 
except  a  clause  wliich  <;ave  the  residue  of  the  estate  to  I'eter 
Kicliard  Keiirick.  In  a  jiroceedin^-  for  the  probate  of  this 
clause  its  jtrohate  was  contested  on  tiie  ^i-ound  that  it  vio- 
lated the  i)rovision  of  the  constitution  of  lS(;.j  forlddding 
any  gift,  bequest,  or  devise  for  the  su|»i»oit.  use.  or  benefit 
of  any  minister,  public  teacher,  or  ])reacher  of  the  gospel 
as  such,  or  to  anv^  religious  sect,  order,  or  denominalion. 
It  appeared  that  prior  to  the  present  will  the  testatrix  made 
anotlier  will,  in  which  the  residue  of  the  estate  was  given 
to  I'eter  Kichard  Keurick  in  his  otticial  cajtacity  as  arch- 
bishop of  the  Koman  Catholic  Church  for  the  benefit  of  the 
church.  The  first  will  was  nuule  ])rior  to  the  adojition  of 
the  constitution,  and  a  new  will  was  thereafter  made,  omit- 
ting the  archbishop's  title  and  the  object  of  the  bequest.  It 
was  held  that  the  bequest  was  void  under  the  constitution. 
Ken  rick  v  Cole,  01  Mo.  572. 

In  Boyce  v  Christian,  09  Mo.  492,  it  was  held  that  this 
societv'  was  a  religious  sect  and  therefore  incapable  under 
the  Missouri  constitution  of  receiving  a  devise,  notwithstand- 
ing it  was  but  a  local  congregation  uncontrolled  by  any 
genei-al  ecclesiastical  organization. 

Conveyance,  Includes  Will.  A  will  is  a  conveyance  within 
the  meaning  of  the  3  Vic.  chap.  4,  clause  10,  relative  to  a 
(h'ed  or  conveyance  made  to  a  bi.sho])  or  rector  or  other 
incumbent  of  the  Church  of  England,  provided  such  deed  or 
conveyance  be  made  and  executed  at  least  six  months  before 
the  death  of  the  person.  Doe  Baker  v  Clark,  7  U.  C.  Q.  B. 
(Can.)  44. 

Corporation.  Bequest  by  Nonresident.  A  New  York  act  of 
ISCiO,  chap.  3(;0,  which  ])r<nided  that  "no  jterson  having  a 
husband,  wife,  child  or  jtarent,  shall,  by  his  or  her  last  will 


WILL  S7!» 

aud  te.staiiK'iil,  (Icxisc  or  iK-tpicatli  lo  any  liciievoU'iit,  cliai- 
itable,  literal y,  scirutilic.  religious,  or  iiiissioiiary  associa- 
tion or  c-orpoialioii  in  trust  or  otlierwise  more  than  one  half 
part  of  his  or  her  estate,  after  the  payment  of  his  or  lier 
debts,  and  sucli  (U'vise  or  bequest  shall  be  valid  to  the  extent 
of  one  half  and  no  more,"  was  held  not  to  apply  to  a  Massa- 
ehusetts  testator;  accordingly,  it  could  not  prevent  a  New 
York  corjioration  from  receiving  a  bequest  from  a  uouresi- 
dent  testator  witliout  regard  to  the  limit  of  amount.  Healy 
V  Keed,  15:1  Mass.  V,)l. 

Dissolution  of  Society,  Effect.  A  testator  devised  real  estate 
in  trust,  for  the  payment  of  the  income  in  sui»port  of  a 
pastor,  or  elder  iu  a  church  in  the  town  where  testator 
resided,  of  a  certain  faith  and  practice  so  long  as  the  mem- 
bers of  that  church  or  their  .successors  should  maintain  the 
visibilitj'  of  a  church  in  such  faith  and  order.  Afterward 
the  only  two  members  of  the  church  at  a  meeting  called  by 
public  notice,  voted  and  resolved  that  they  would  no  longer 
endeavor  to  maintain  the  appearance  of  a  visible  church,  and 
declared  the  church  dissolved  and  extinct.  It  was  held  that 
the  church  was  thereupon  dissolved,  and  ceased  to  be  a  vis- 
ible church,  and  that  the  trustee  held  the  estate  as  a  result- 
ing trust,  for  the  testator's  heirs-at-law.  Easterbrooks  v 
Tillinghast,  nOray  (Mass.)  17. 

Foreign  Beneficiary.  In  Magill  v  Brown,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
8,952  (U.  S.  (^ir.  Ct.  Pa.)  (Brightly  N.  P.  ;U7),  it  was  held 
that  one  of  the  privileges  secured  in  eveiy  State  to  the 
citizens  of  the  several  States  by  art.  4,  sec.  2  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  is  that  of  exemption  from  the  l:i\v 
of  alienage  and  the  consequent  riglit  of  enjoying  i»roper(y 
iu  the  several  States;  and,  accordingly,  a  devise  or  be- 
quest cannot  be  defeated  on  the  ground  that  the  beneficiary 
is  a  citizen  or  a  corporation  of  anotiiei-  State  tlian  llie 
testator. 

In  this  case  the  will  of  a  resident  of  rennsylvania  con- 
tained bequests  largely  for  religious  ]»nrposes  (o  persons, 
societies,  or  institutions  in   Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  Ohio, 


sso        Till';  (M\ii.  LAW   AM)  'I'm;  (iii  i;('ii 

;iii(l  \'irjj;iiii;i.  Tlu'S(;  hcijiicsls  vvero  siis(;iiiM'(|  niidci-  the 
(■laime  of  the  federal  coiiHtitution  wliicli  piovideH  tliat  "the 
citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  i)iivilf'f^eH 
and  iimiiuiiities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States." 

Foreign  Society.  A  heiinest  to  a  Massachusetts  relij;ions 
society  by  a  resident  of  New  York  was  sustained  in  Re  Bul- 
lock, (;  Deui.  Sur.  Ct.  (N.  Y.)  3.35.  The  capacity  of  the 
society  to  take  was  to  be  tested  by  the  Massachusetts  law, 
under  which  the  bequest  wtis  valid. 

Identifying  Beneficiary.  It  is  not  necessary  tluit  the  name 
of  the  devisee  should  be  mentioned  in  the  will ;  it  is  enough 
if  the  devisee  be  described  by  words  that  are  sufficient 
to  denote  the  person  meant  by  the  testator;  and  to  distin- 
guish him  from  all  others.  Evidence  is  admissible  to  show 
the  beneficiary  intended  in  case  of  doubt.  Button  v  Amer- 
ican Tract  Society,  2.3  Vt.  336. 

A  devise  to  the  Diocese  of  Central  New  York  to  be  used  as 
a  bishop's  residence  was  sustained  in  Kingsbury  v  Bran<l- 
egee,  113  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  006,  on  the  ground  that  although 
there  was  no  corporation  by  the  technical  name  mentioned 
in  the  will,  the  testatrix  evidently  intended  to  give  the  prop- 
erty to  the  corporation  known  as  the  trustees  of  the  Diocese 
of  Central  New  York. 

The  testator  devised  a  portion  of  his  estate  to  the  Society 
for  Ameliorating  the  Condition  of  -Tews.  At  the  time  of  his 
death  the  only  society  of  this  class  in  existence  was  the 
"American  Society  for  Ameliorating  the  Condition  of  the 
Jews,"  which  was  incorporated  by  the  Legislature  of  New 
York  in  1820.  This  society  was  held  entitled  to  receive  the 
devise.    Brewster  v  McCall's  Ex'rs.,  15  Conn.  274. 

The  misnomer  of  a  legatee  or  devisee,  whether  that  legatee 
be  an  individual  or  a  corporation,  will  not  invalidate  the  gift 
or  devise,  if  the  true  object  of  the  testator's  bounty  can  be 
ascertained  either  from  the  will  itself  or  by  evidence  aliunde. 
It  was  competent  to  show  that  a  bequest  to  ''St.  Mary's 
Roman  Catholic  Church  of  Coo])erstown,  N.  Y.,"  was  in- 
tended for  the  "Church  of  the  Lady  of  the  Lake,  Coopers- 


WILL  <^S1 

towu,  N.  Y.,"  that  being  the  true  name  of  the  corporation. 
Ke  Foley  Estate,  27  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  77. 

Testatrix  made  a  bequest  to  the  treasurer  tor  llic  tiinc 
being  of  the  Society  for  the  J'ropagation  of  the  (Jospel  among 
the  Jews  in  ai<l  of  tlie  general  pnrjtoses  of  tliat  society. 
There  was  no  society  bearing  that  name.  Tliere  were  two 
societies  organized  for  the  same  general  purpose  as  that 
named  in  the  will,  one  "The  London  Society  for  I'romoting 
Christianity  among  the  Jews,"  and  the  other  "The  British 
Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  among  the  Jcnns." 
Evidence  was  admitted  to  show  ^^■hich  of  these  societies  was 
intended  by  the  testatrix,  and  the  fact  that  she  had  sub- 
scribed to  the  London  Society  was  held  to  (urn  the  scale  in 
favor  of  that  institution,  and  the  legacy  was  made  payable 
accordingly.    Re  Fearns  Will,  27  Wkly.  Rep.  ( Eng.)  392. 

A  will  dated  in  1820  devised  a  portion  of  the  testator's 
estate  to  the  American  Tract  Society.  The  testator  died  in 
1838.  At  that  time  there  were  two  American  Tract  societies, 
one  in  Boston,  which  was  incorporated  before  the  execu- 
tion of  the  will ;  the  other  was  in  New  York,  was  not  incor- 
porated, and  was  organized  after  the  execution  of  the  will. 
It  was  held  that  the  Boston  societ}^  was  entitled  to  the  devise. 
Brewster  v  McCalPs  Ex'rs.  15  Conn.  274. 

A  testator  nmde  a  bequest  to  the  Franklin  Seminary  of 
Literature  an<l  vScience,  New  Market,  New  Hampshire. 
There  was  no  institution  of  that  name,  but  there  was  an 
institution  incorporated  by  the  name  of  the  trustees  of  the 
South  Newmaikct  Methodist  St'ininaiT.  It  was  held  that 
there  was  a  latent  and)iguily  in  the  description  of  the  legatee 
in  the  will,  which  might  be  explained  by  paiol  evidence. 
South  New  Market  Methodist  Seminary  v  I'easlee.  IT)  N.  H. 
317. 

What  is  sufficient  description  of  corporations  or  societies 
as  beneficiaries?  A  corjioration  or  an  individual  entitled 
to  take  by  devise  may  take  as  well  by  description  as  by  name. 
American  Bible  Society  v  Wetmore,  17  Conn.  181. 

Indefiniteness.     A  becpu'st  of  a  ceitain  sum  to  the  Uuiver- 


SSL'  Till']   ("l\II.    LAW   ANI>   'i'lli;   CIUKCir 

sjilisi  rcli/^iods  (Iciioiiiiiijil  ion  in  the  ('(»iiiit_v  oT  HcrUsliirc  as 
;i  pcrinancnl  I'lnHl,  llic  nsc  l<»  he  applied  annually  for  the 
suppofi  of  lliat  tlcnorninal  ir»n.  is  not  \<»i<l  lor  unccflaint  \  ; 
and  if  no  truslcc  is  named  in  llic  will,  ('(piily  will  a|»|toinl 
li-nslccs  1o  cNccnle  llic  trust,  on  a  bill  (il('<l  hy  tlic  or<iani/cd 
Uliivei'salisI  soridics  of  llic  <-onntv.  I'ii-sl  I 'nivcrsalisf 
Socicly.  Xorlii  Adams,  and  others  v  I'itcli.  S  dray  i.Mass.  i 
421. 

A  heipiesi  was  made  to  the  rrolestant  ('luircli  liihle  So- 
ciety. So  far  as  appeared  in  Ihe  case,  no  such  society  ever 
existed.  The  court  said  that  it  must  be  infei-red  from  tlio 
bequest  thai  the  testator  meant  a  society  whose  objects  were 
charitable,  as  tlio  clieap  distribution  of  Bibles  would  be. 
Tlie  testator's  object  was  lield  to  have  failed,  and  a  decree 
was  made  directing  the  application  of  the  fund  according  to 
a  scheme  to  be  determined,  Cottrell  v  Parkes,  25  T.  L.  Tt. 
(Eng.)  523. 

Testatrix  bequeathed  a  portion  of  her  residuary  estate  to 
her  husband  for  the  purpose  of  making  such  distribution 
among  religious,  benevolent,  and  charitable  objects  as  he 
may  select.  This  was  held  void  for  indefiniteness.  Hege- 
man's  Executors  v  Koome,  70  N.  J.  Eq.  562. 

A  testator  made  a  bequest  to  a  trustee  to  be  used  only 
toward  the  erection  of  a  church,  and  directed  that  it  should 
not  be  i)aid  by  the  trustee  until  he  is  perfectly  satisfied  that 
no  debts  of  any  kind  whatever  rest  on  said  church  property, 
or  until  said  amount  with  accrued  interest,  would  place  the 
church  entirely  out  of  debt.  The  erection  of  the  church  was 
begun  in  testator's  lifetime,  and  completed  three  years  before 
his  death.  During  the  time  of  its  building  the  testator 
contributed  various  sums,  but  for  other  purjjoses  than  that 
designated  by  the  legacy.  At  the  testator's  death  there  was 
a  small  debt  against  the  church.  It  was  held  that  the  «  huich 
was  entitled  to  the  whole  amount  of  the  legacy,  less  the 
inheritance  tax.    Keiper's  Estate,  5  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  5(58. 

Devises  for  poor  and  needy  jieople  of  a  church  who  are 
dependent  upon  their  own  labor  for  a  livelihood,  for  religious 


WILL  S83 

societies  of  a  said  city  witliout  regard  to  sect  wlio  prefer  to 
woriv  foi-  the  good  and  well-being  of  mankind,  and  for  luiild- 
iiig  and  iiiaiiitaining  of  a  fonndling  iiosjiital  to  relieve 
nnfortnnate  females  and  protect  their  offspring,  describe 
beneficiaries  with  sufficient  certainty.  I'hillips  v  Harrow, 
Ul\  la.  U'2. 

A  testator  made  a  bequest  for  the  use  of  "Koiiiaii  Catholic 
priests  in  and  near  London."  The  legatee  died  during  the 
lifetime  of  the  testator.  It  was  held  that  the  legacy  <li(l  not 
lapse,  but  was  iuten<led  for  the  benefit  of  Koman  Catholic 
priests  in  aud  near  London  both  at  the  testator's  death  and 
afterward;  the  legacy  was  not  deemed  indefinite  because 
of  the  use  of  the  word  ''near,"  for  the  reason  that  the  court 
might  direct  a  scheme  to  be  approved  by  the  master. 
Attorney-General  v  (iladstone,  i;>  Sim.    (Eng. )   7. 

Testator  gave  his  residuary  estate  to  the  Orthodox  Protes- 
tant Clergjnien  of  Delphi  and  their  successors  to  be  ex- 
pended in  the  education  of  colored  children,  "both  umle  and 
fenuile,  in  such  way  aud  manner  as  they  may  deem  best,  of 
which  a  majority  of  them  shall  determine;  and  my  object 
in  this  becpiest  being  to  j)r<)mote  the  moral  and  religious 
imj)rovement  and  well-being  of  the  colored  race." 

There  was  no  organization  like  that  named  in  the  will 
either  in  Deljihi,  Indiana,  or  elsewhere.  It  was.  therefore, 
held  that  there  was  no  trustee  couipetent  to  1ak<'  the  devise. 
The  devise  was  also  held  void  for  uncertainty,  tni-  the  ica- 
son  that  it  was  impossible  to  select  the  beneliciaries  intended 
to  be  the  objects  of  the  tcstatoi-'s  bounty ;  no  nu'thod  was  pre- 
scribed for  selecting  tlic  coloj-ed  cliildicn  \\h()  should  re- 
ceive the  pro])osed  instruction,  (iiinies  I].\eculors  v  Har- 
mon and  others,  '.\~t  Ind.  1!)S. 

Testator  gave  his  i-ejil  estate  to  his  \\ilc  \'{}V  life,  with  a 
provision  that  ujKtn  her  death  the  real  estate  should  be  dis- 
l>ose<l  of  by  the  bishop  (of  I>id>u<piei  and  a]>ply  so  nnnh 
thereof  to  the  church  or  to  the  ednr;ition  and  inainten.ince 
of  poor  children  as  lie.  in  his  \\isd(»ni  niiglit  think  proper 
and  leijal. 


SSI  Tin:  ("I\  IL   LAW   AM>   Till:  ("IHIU'H 

The  (U'visc  \v;is  iicld  void  lor  iiiKcitiiiiil  \ ,  the  court  ol)s<*rv- 
ingthiit  il  is  uiicertain  what  churcji  is  intended.  It  is  uncer- 
tain what  poor  cliildren  are  intended  to  be  the  i"e(i|)ients  of 
the  testator's  bounty.  The  poor  chiblren  of  no  particular 
city,  town,  church,  or  State  are  desigiiate<l.  1 1"  there  were 
no  difficulty  in  this  I'espect,  it  is  still  uncertain  whether  the 
testator  inten<led  his  bounty  should  <;o  to  the  <-hnrch  or  to 
the  poor  cliildren.  It  is  uncertain  how  much  is  to  f?o  to  the 
charity.  The  bishoj)  is  to  determine  not  only  the  object,  but 
the  amount  of  the  fund  it  is  to  receive,  aud  how  much  it  is 
jiroper  aud  legal  should  be  so  ai)plied.  It  is  uncertain 
whether  the  bishoj)  is  to  administer  the  trust  in  his  ofTicial 
or  in  his  individual  cajtacity,  and  whether  the  power  is  to 
be  exercised  by  him  or  his  successors.  Lepage  v  McNamara, 
5  la.  124. 

A  devise  of  real  estate,  describing  the  devisees  only  as 
"those  members  of  the  Society  of  the  Most  Precious  Blood 
who  are  under  my  control  and  subject  to  my  authority  at  the 
time  of  my  death,''  is  void  because  not  pointing  out  with  sulti- 
cient  certainty  the  persons  who  are  to  take.  Society  of 
the  Most  Precious  Blood  v  Moll,  51  Minn.  277. 

A  legacy  in  aid  of  a  mission  to  be  established  in  Africa  by 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  was  sustained  in  Domestic 
and  Foreign  Missionary  Society's  Appeal,  30  Pa.  St.  425, 
although  the  objects  of  the  bounty  were  not  definitely  de- 
scribed.   A  legacy  to  a  mission  is  sufficiently  definite. 

Testator,  who  died  in  1800.  made  a  bequest  to  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  in  America  whereof  Francis  Asbury 
is  at  present  (the  date  of  the  will  i  the  presiding  bishop. 
The  bequest  was  held  void  for  uncertainty.  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  of  America  was  an  aggregate  body,  com- 
posed of  a  multitude  of  individuals  not  incorporated,  and 
was  incom]»etent  to  hold  property  of  any  kind.  Holland  v 
Peck,  2  Iredell  Eq.   (N.  C.I  255. 

Intention.  A  bequest  to  tlie  "Baptist  societies  for  foreign 
and  domestic  missions,  and  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible 
societies''  is  valid  aud  sutliciently  specitic;  and  if  societies 


WILL  SS5 

cau  be  fouud,  which   were  organized  aud   known   by   tho>e 
names  at  the  time  of  the  testator's  death,  they  will  be  con 
sidered  the  societies  referred  to  in  the  will  and  cai);!l)lc  of 
taking  the  bequest  whether  incorporated  or  not.     (.'arter  v 
Balfour  Adm.,  19  Ala.  (N.  S.)  814. 

Testator  made  a  bequest  to  the  Catholic  Church,  and  the 
Baptist,  I'resbyterian,  and  Methodist  Churches.  It  was  held 
that  the  churches  in  the  town  where  the  testator  resided  were 
intended  as  the  objects  of  his  bounty.  Trustees,  Catholic 
Clyirch  Taylorsville  v  Ottutt's  Adm.,  G  B.  Mon.  (Ky.j  5o5. 

For  the  i)uri)ose  of  exi)laining  a  devise  to  a  l*rotestant 
Episcopal  church  in  New  Canaan,  Connecticut,  evidence  was 
admitted  to  show  that  there  was  an  incorporated  society 
with  a  comjjlete  organization  bearing  that  title,  and  that 
there  was  also  another  body  composed  only  of  communicants 
and  baptized  persons  called  the  church,  and  that  the  testator 
referred  to  the  latter  body  and  intended  tlie  devise  for  iis 
benefit  and  not  for  the  incorporated  society.  Ayres  v  Wet^d. 
IG  Conn.  2!)1. 

Legacy  Forfeited  by  Change  of  Doctrine.  Teslator,  a  I'lii 
tarian,  made  a  bequest  to  a  town  for  the  support  of  Uni- 
tarian doctrines  and  teachings.  The  society  afterward 
changed  its  faith  and  doctrine  and  became  Ti'initarian.  It 
was  held  that  the  legacy  was  thereby  forfeited.  IMinci'toii 
v  Adams,  10  C^ush.  (Mass.)   121). 

Legislative  Sanction.  Under  the  ])r(»visi(»iis  of  art.  ;!S  of 
the  Maryland  Declaration  of  Rights,  tiiat  "ev(M\\  dc\isi'  or 
bequest  of  lands  and  of  goods  and  chattels,  to  or  loi-  the 
benefit  of  any  minister,  jjublic  teaclier,  or  minister  ol  ilic 
gospel,  as  such,  or  any  religious  sect,  order,  or  denominatictii, 
without  prior  or  subsequent  sanction  of  the  Legishiturc  simll 
be  void,"  it  was  lichl  tiiat  such  sanction  by  tlic  Lcgislaturt* 
was  valid,  even  if  expressed  in  ;in  act  passed  after  the  death 
of  the  testatrix.  The  Legislature  had  jtower  to  exjunsss  its 
sanction  witliin  a  reasonable  time  after  such  death.  Church 
lOxtension  of  the  Methodist  I'piseojial  Church  v  Smiili.  .")G 
Md.  3G2. 


ssd        Tin:  ciN'ii.  LAW  AM)  Tin:  ciii  imwi 

So  in  MiiMcr  ol'  l-'il/jiiiiiioiis,  111)  Misc.  i  X.  V.  i  Tol,  il  \va> 
lield  that  wlici*' a  l(»r('i<i;n  coi-poratioii  could  not  lake  without 
action  npoti  the  part  of  th<*  J>('<;islatiirc  of  its  domicile,  the 
court  directed  that  the  legatee  he  given  a  r<*asonahle  time  to 
ohtain  the  legislative  sanction. 

Testatrix  by  a  will,  which  was  admitted  to  probate  in 
Septend)er,  1S7(»,  gave  a  legacy  to  the  above  society-.  The 
Legislature  in  1878  passed  an  act  approving  the  befpiest,  biit 
the  executor's  tinal  account  had  already  been  tiled.  The 
society  was  held  entitled  to  receive  the  legacy.  Ivnglainl^v 
X'estry  Prince  George's  Parish,  53  Md.  400. 

Misdescription.  Legacies  were  given  to  religious  societies 
by  names  which  were  not  their  (orrect  corporate  names  but 
which  phiinly  described  the  resi)ective  institutions  the  tes- 
tator had  in  mind,  but  no  other  institution  of  similar  name 
claimed  either  of  them.  The  bequests  were  sustaine(L  Re 
Dickenson's  Estate,  50  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  232. 

Parol  Evidence.  If  the  object  of  the  bequest  is  uncertain, 
parol  evidence  is  admissible  to  explain  the  testator's  inten- 
tion.   Koy  V  Rowzie,  25  Gratt.  (Va.)  599. 

Perpetuity.  A  provision  in  a  will  directing  the  executor  to 
])ay  the  net  annual  income  derived  from  the  rent  of  certain 
real  estate  to  religious  corporations  for  twenty  years,  after 
which  the  pro])erty  was  to  be  sold,  created  a  ]>erpetuity 
under  the  Wisconsin  statute,  and  was  therefore  void.  I>e 
Wolf  V  Lawson,  (H  Wis.  -inu. 

Quakers,  Yearly  Meeting,  Void  Devise.  A  devise  to  a  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Quakers  for  the  jturpose  of  aiding  a  boarding 
school  in  Provi<lence  was  held  voi<l,  for  the  reason  that  the 
Yearly  Meeting  was  only  an  unincorporated  voluntary  asso- 
ciation, and  could  not  take  by  devise.  Greene  v  Dennis, 
t;  (\)nn.  29:?. 

Religion,  Advancement.  A  bequest  to  te.stator's  parents 
with  directions  that  on  their  death  a  sjtecitied  sum  should  be 
used  "for  the  interest  of  religions,  and  for  the  advancement 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Christ  in  the  world."  and  for  that  purpose 
the  sum  sjtecitied  was  t<>  be  paid  to  several  organizations  in 


WILL  SS7 

(lirt'eieiit  portions,  it  was  held  that  these  residuary  hetiuesls 
(lid  not  eoiifstitute  a  trust,  nor  was  the  j)rovision  void  for 
uncertainty.  Tlu'  money  devoted  to  tlie  advancement  of 
religion  was  to  be  e.\])ended  by  well-known  religions  organ- 
izations, and  they  were  entitled  to  receive  the  resi<hiary 
bequests  and  use  them  for  the  purposes  expressed  by  the 
testator.    American  Tract  Society  v  Atwater,  'M  Ohio  St.  77. 

Testator  provided  that  his  residuary  estate  after  the  <leath 
of  his  widow,  should  be  a]»pi-oi»riated  by  the  executor  for  the 
advancement  of  religion,  in  such  manner  as  in  his  judgment 
will  best  promote  that  object.  In  a  proceeding  to  have  this 
provision  declare<l  void  for  uncertainty,  the  court  held  that 
it  was  capable  of  execution  by  the  executor,  at  the  proper 
time,  and  that  the  court  could  not  anticipate  that  the  ex- 
ecutor would  not  properly  applj'  the  bequest  when  the  resid- 
uary provision  became  effective.  Miller  v  Teachout,  24  Ohio 
St.  525. 

A  bequest  made  for  the  use  of  the  Welch  Circulation 
Charity  Schools  as  long  as  they  should  continue,  and  the 
increase  and  improvement  of  Christian  knowledge  and  ])ro- 
moting  religion,  and  to  purchase  Bibles  and  other  religious 
books,  pami)hlets,  and  tracts  as  the  trustees  think  tit,  was 
sustained,  but  a  devise  of  the  house  in  which  such  charity 
should  be  carried  on  was  declared  void.  Attorney  General 
V  Stepney,  10  \'es.  -Ir.  ( I'^ng. )  21. 

Reward  of  Merit.  A  be(pu*st  of  a  fund,  the  income  of  wiii(  li 
was  to  be  use«l  for  rewai-ds  of  merit  to  })Oor  puj)ils  in  the 
parochial  schools  of  Louisville  was  sustained  in  Colnnaii  v 
O'Leary,  114  Ky.  :{SS. 

Sailors'  Home,  Boston,  Massachusetts.  Testator  gave  a  leg- 
acy to  the  Sailors'  Home  in  Boston.  Two  societies  claimecl 
the  legacy,  one  called  the  National  Sailors'  Home,  whicli 
had  no  sailors'  home  in  Boston,  and  the  other,  the  Boston 
Ladies'  Bethel  Society,  which  was  maintaining  a  sailors' 
home  in  Boston  at  the  time  of  the  testator's  death.  The 
latter  society  was  held  entitled  to  the  legacy.  l"'aidi<nei  v 
National  Sailors'  Home,  l."),")  Mass.  458. 


Nss        'I'lii;  ('i\ii.  LAW   .\M»  Tin:  cm  ijcii 

Slavery  and  Intemperance.  Lc;;;Mi('s  were  j^ivcn  to  lliis 
society  so  Nmj;  iis  it  slionid  \u-.\v  |»nhlic  tcstiinony  ;i}^;niist 
sliivciT  ;ni<l  iiitciniKMMncc.  AN'Iicii  sucii  |.iil>lic  t«'stiiiM»iiv 
ccjiscd  Uic  I'ijjlit  to  the  lej^acy  cciiscd,  ami  tlMM-calicr  tlic 
icsiduaiy  lejjatees  became  entitled  to  the  fund.  Mailer  ol 
Oi'tliodox  roiif^regatioiial  Clmicli,  Cnioii  X'illajif.  (I  Aldi. 
\.  ('.  (N.  Y.)  :'.os. 

Sunday  School.  Testatrix  bequeathed  to  tlie  society  a  siiin 
of  money  for  tlie  use  of  the  Sunday  s<-iiool,  one  lialf  for  tlie 
libraiy  and  one  half  for  runiiin*^  expenses.  This  was  lield 
to  be  a  trust  to  be  administered  by  the  court  by  the  apjioinl 
nient  of  a  trustee  if  necessary.  Cowan's  Estate,  4  Pa.  Dist. 
Rep.  4:^5. 

Testator's  Religious  Opinions.  In  Attorney-General  ex  rel 
Bailey  v  Moore's  Executors,  10  N.  J.  Eq.  5fl.'*>,  it  is  said  thai 
*'the  cases  in  whieh  consideiation  of  the  religious  faith  of 
the  founder  of  a  charity  is  resorted  to  for  the  purj)Ose  of 
ascertaining  his  intent,  are,  without  exception,  cases  in 
which  the  primary  object  of  the  foundation  was  the  propaga- 
tion of  religious  doctrines,  or  the  donor  in  the  instrument  of 
foundation  has  made  some  ex])ress  ])rovisiou  relative  to  the 
1-eligious  instruction  to  be  given.'' 

Time  Limit.  A  testator  died  five  days  after  making  his 
will.  A  bequest  to  the  college  (of  St.  Frauds  Xavier)  was 
held  invalid,  for  the  reason  that  it  was  not  made  at  least 
two  months  prior  to  the  testator's  death  as  required  by  sec. 
G  of  the  act  of  1848,  chai>.  311).  Matter  of  Fitziramons,  211 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  731. 

A  bequest  to  the  society  (of  St.  A'incent  de  Paul )  was  sus- 
tained on  the  ground  that  the  society  was  not  subject  to  the 
two  months'  limitation  in  the  act  of  1848,  chaj).  319.  Matter 
of  Fitzimmons,  21)  Mi.sc.  (N.  Y.)  731. 

A  devise  of  the  residuary  estate  to.  the  Roman  Catholic 
Little  Sisters  of  the  Poor  was  held  void  because  the  will  was 
made  within  two  months  of  the  testatrix'  death.  Marx  \ 
McOlynn,  88  N.  Y.  357. 

A  devise  to  tlie  societv  was  held  void  under  a  will  ma<le 


WILJ.  SS'.» 

within  one  onlendjir  month  j)rioi-  to  the  death  of  the  (estat(»r. 
The  will  was  dated  Felnnary  10,  an<l  tlie  tcstatin-  died  March 
1>.    Ke  Carnell's  Estate,  \)  riiila.  (Pa.)  :V22. 

Testatrix  made  jnovision  in  her  will  for  the  education  of 
a  relative  for  the  Treshylerian  miiustry,  directing  the  jtay- 
ment  of  the  expenses  occasioned  by  his  education  until  he 
should  have  become  an  ordained  I'resbyterian  minister;  but 
if  he  should  refuse  to  accept  the  provision  for  his  education, 
or  neglect  to  pursue  the  required  studies  to  lit  liini  for  the 
ministry,  then  the  money  available  for  such  e<lucation  was 
to  be  paid  to  I'rinceton  College,  and  to  be  used  for  the  educa- 
tion of  Presbyterian  ministers.  It  was  held  that  this  was 
not  a  trust  prinuirily  for  religious  uses,  but  that  the  primary 
purpose  was  the  education  of  the  relative,  and  the  testatrix 
having  died  within  one  month  after  making  her  will,  the 
bequest  did  not  become  void  under  the  Pennsylvania  statute. 
McMillen's  Appeal,  11  Wkly  Notes  of  Cases  (l*a.)  440. 

In  Stephenson  v  Short,  92  N.  Y.  43:J,  it  was  held  that  the 
two  months  clause  relating  to  devi.ses  and  bequests  to  <-or- 
porations,  contained  in  sec.  0,  chai).  Ml!),  of  the  Laws  of  1S4S, 
applied  to  all  wills,  and  therefore  that  a  bequest  to  a  mis- 
sionary society  in  a  will  executed  two  days  before  testator's 
death,  was  invalid. 

Under  a  Pennsylvania  statute  declaring  void  bequests 
among  other  things  for  religious  uses  unless  the  will  was 
made  at  least  one  month  before  the  testator's  death,  it  was 
held  that  a  legacy  to  a  church  to  be  used  in  saying  masses 
for  the  rej)Ose  of  the  testator's  soul  was  void,  it  a]>pearing 
that  the  will  was  made  within  one  month  before  teslatoi-'s 
death.     Rhymers  Appeal.  !i;'.  I'a.  S(.  141'. 

Teslati-ix  executed  a  will  on  October  S,  1S!>!I.  between  the 
houi's  of  'A  and  .")  o'clock  r.  m.  She  died  on  Xovembei*  S  of 
the  same  year  between  the  houis  of  7  and  S  o'clock  w  m. 
rt  was  held  that  the  t<'stali-ix  died  within  one  calendai- 
month  after  the  execution  of  the  will,  the  court  observing 
that  the  manifest  m<>aning  of  iIk-  sialule.  Pennsylvania  act 
of  1855,  is  that  such  a  monlh  nmsl   lully  elajise  between  the 


S!M)  Till':   ('l\IL    L.\\V   AND   'I'lli:   CIHIMH 

dates  of  llic  Iwo  cvciils.  A  ciilciKljii-  iimhiIIi  is  mndc  n|)  of 
days,  ill  lliis  case*  lliirty-oiu*  days,  and  llic  liinc  i<i  In*  coiii- 
])uted  ill  (his  case  iiioant  Ihirly-oiu*  full  cakMidar  <lays,  Itcf^in- 
iiiug  wlioii  October  8  ended,  at  niidnif^lit,  and  ending  at  the 
close  of  Novend)er  8,  at  uiidiiij^ht.  Concerning  the  ol)ject  of 
tlie  statute  makinji^  voi<l  a  will  executed  within  one  month 
]trior  to  tlie  testator's  death,  the  court  said  that  the  statute  is 
lor  the  i)rotection  of  a  testator  of  the  last  full  calendar 
month  of  his  life  against  yieldin*;  to  any  influences  during 
that  period — so  often  a  suscej)til)le  one — which  may  unduly 
lead  him  to  divide  his  estate,  or  any  portion  of  it,  to  religious 
or  charitable  uses.    Re  Gregg's  Estate,  213  Pa.  2i;0. 

Simmons  v  Burrell,  8  Misc.  (N.  Y, )  388,  holds  that  a 
residuary  bequest  to  cori)orations  made  within  two  months 
before  testator's  death,  is  invalid. 

See.  G  of  chap.  319  of  the  New  York  Act  of  1848,  declar- 
ing invalid  a  will  executed  within  two  months  prior  to  the 
death  of  the  testator  so  far  as  it  affects  a  gift  to  a  charitable 
corporation,  was  not  repealed  nor  amended  by  chap.  041  of 
the  laws  of  1881.  Matter  of  Conner,  44  Hun  (N.  Y.)  424, 
1  St.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  144. 

The  i)rovisiou  in  the  act  of  1848,  chap.  31 U.  sec.  G,  prohib- 
iting gifts  to  certain  cor])orations  by  a  will  made  within 
two  months  prior  to  the  death  of  the  testator  applies  only 
to  corporations  organized  under  that  act,  and  it  was,  accord- 
ingly, held  that  gifts  to  certain  foreign  corporations  author- 
ized by  their  charters  to  receive  such  gifts  were  valid. 
Gifts  to  corporations  described  in  the  act  are  not  against 
public  policy,  and  testamentary  gifts  to  such  institutions 
are  not  condemned  by  any  policy  outside  the  statute,  llcdlis 
V  Drew  Theological  Seminary.  05  N.  Y.  1(U>. 

In  Harris  v  American  Baptist  Home  Mission  Society,  33 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  411,  it  was  held  that  a  bequest  to  this  society 
was  not  subject  to  the  i)rovision  contained  in  chap.  310  of 
the  laws  of  1848,  making  invalid  such  a  bequest  made  within 
two  months  prior  to  the  death  of  the  testator, 

A  gift  to  Yale  College  mad<*  bv  a  will  executed  within  two 


WILL  .SDL 

months  before  the  testator's  death,  and  including  property, 
the  annual  income  of  which  exceeded  !?10,UU0,  was  sustaiiuMl. 
The  only  living  relative  of  the  testator  was  an  aunt.  Ke 
Lampson,  Kil  N.  Y.  511. 

See  Kavanagh's  Will,  125  N.  Y.  418.  Testator  died  within 
one  month  after  the  will  was  made.  The  case  holds  that  the 
court  may  take  judicial  notice  that  the  fifth  edition  of  the 
revised  statutes,  published  in  1851),  was  in  common  use  in 
18<5(;,  when  an  act  was  i)assed  applying  to  certain  provisions 
of  the  revised  statutes,  and  that  under  the  circumstances 
this  edition  of  the  revised  statutes  must  have  been  intended 
by  the  Legislature. 

A  person  executed  a  will,  disposing  of  her  property  to  vari- 
ous persons  and  societies.  Two  days  after  the  execution  of 
the  will  she,  then  being  very  ill,  w^as  informed  that  if  she 
should  die  within  a  month  the  bequests  to  charities  would 
fail.  She  thereui)on  executed  documents  making  an  imme- 
diate transfer  of  property  for  the  purposes,  or  some  of  them, 
indicate<l  in  the  will. 

This  disposition  of  her  property  was  sustained  as  a  valid 
gift,  and  was  not  within  the  prohibition  of  the  Pennsylvania 
statute  prohibiting  a  legacy  or  devise  for  charitable  pur- 
poses contained  in  a  will  executed  within  one  munlh 
prior  to  the  testator's  death.  Mc(;iade's  Appeal,  !)It  Ta. 
St.  338. 

A  legacy  to  a  cjiurcli  contained  in  a  will  made  wiiliiii 
thirty  days  of  the  deatli  of  the  testatrix  was  licld  valid 
under  the  rennsylvania  ad  of  1855,  for  th(>  reason  dial  (lie 
will  was  made  in  ]>nrsuance  of  a  jtroniisc  by  llie  testatrix 
to  one  who  bequeathed  the  i»r(»|i('i-ty  to  her  (hat  she  would 
give  to  the  church.  The  church  was  entitled  to  iuvttkc  the 
aid  of  a  court  of  equity  to  comj)el  the  jx'rforniance  of  the 
promise.    I\e  Hoffner's  Estate,  Kil  ra..'.'.l. 

Testatrix  bequeathed  a  fund  t()  the  j»aslor  of  the  cliufth, 
but  there  was  no  trust  or  c(ui<litioii  for  charitable  use.  h 
was  held  that,  under  the  circunistances.  the  I»c(iuesi  was  to 
the  pastor  as  an  indix  idiial,  ami  was  ii(»t  subjcci   to  liic  pro 


SU'2  Till':   CINII.    LAW    AM)   Till;   <'lll   IM   II 

\  isioiis  (»r  llic  slalutc  iii:ikiii;^  Noid  ;t  hcrjiirsl  tor  rcli^^ioiis 
purposes  iiiiidc  within  the  oik;  iiiontli  prioi-  to  the  death  ol' 
tho  tost:itrix.  Kc  ilodiiclt's  llstiilc;  O'licilly  Ai.p«';il.  l."l 
Vi\.  485. 

The  t('st;itrix  had  no  children  and  no  descendants  at  the 
time  of  executing'  the  will,  wiiich  was  executed  less  than 
ninety  days  before  her  decease,  and  whicli  made  the  beqnest 
to  charitable  uses.  The  will  was  held  valid  under  the 
Geor<;ia  Code,  which  aj»plied  the  restrictive  time  limit  only 
to  a  testator  leaving  a  Mite  or  children  or  the  descendant  of 
the  child.    Reynolds  v  Bristow,  37  Ga.  283. 

Trustee,  Will  Acknowledging  Trust.  Testator  who  was  a 
trustee  of  u  fund  for  the  payment  of  the  salaiy  of  a  minister 
of  this  church,  by  his  will  acknowledged  such  trust  as  bind- 
ing on  him,  and  appointed  trustees  to  hold,  invest,  and  man- 
age said  fund,  and  pay  its  income  on  such  salary,  and  be- 
queathed the  fund  to  them  for  that  i)urpose.  The  bequest 
was  held  valid.  Morris  Ivxecutors  v  Morris  Devisees,  -iS  W. 
Va.  430. 

Undue  Influence.  A  member  of  the  society  couveyed  a  large 
amount  of  property  to  the  pastor,  nominally  for  the  benefit 
of  the  society.  The  burden  was  on  the  pastor  to  show 
good  faith  in  the  transaction,  although  he  derived  no  per- 
sonal benefit  from  it,  as  the  law  presumes  undue  influence. 
AVhere  a  person  enfeebled  by  age  and  illness,  and  susceptible 
to  influence,  conveys  property-  to  his  pastor,  in  trust  for  the 
])arish,  greatly  in  excess  of  its  needs,  in  addition  to  ]>re- 
vious  liberal  gifts,  and  contrary  to  his  intentions,  expre.s.sed 
before  and  after  making  the  conveyance,  and  the  pastor  had 
opportunities  to  exert  influence,  the  law  presumes  that  the 
conveyance  is  invalid,  and  in  the  absence  of  evidence,  over- 
coming the  i)resumi)tion,  the  conveyance  must  be  set  aside. 
Good  V  Zook,  IK;  la.  r)82. 

Unincorporated  Society.  A  devise  directly  to  a  voluntary 
association  w'as  held  void  in  Tennessee,  but  having  been 
made  to  trustees  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  association 
(Friendship  Church,  Polk  County)  it  was  sustained.    Equity 


WILL  .vj;; 

would  eufoi'te  the  liust.     Cobb  v  Denton,  (j  Baxter  (Tenn.) 
235. 

A  bequest  to  the  Ladies'  Mite  Society  was  held  invalid  for 
the  reason  that  the  society  was  not  incoi'i»orated.  Such  an 
unincorporated  society  could  not  take  the  property  by  be- 
quest, and  was  incapable  of  enforcing  the  trust  declared 
by  the  will  for  its  benefit.  Church  Extension  of  the  Meth 
odist  Episcopal  Church  v  Smith,  50  Md.  ;;()L*. 

Testator  devised  land  to  Francis  Asbury  for  the  use  of  the 
Methodist  society  and  a  school.  The  Methodist  society 
was  not  incorporated,  and  was,  therefore,  incapable  to  take 
the  devise  which  was  held  void.  Muri)liy  v  Dallam.  1  Uland 
Ch.  (Md.)  529. 

Unitarians.  A  legacy  to  the  minister  or  niinistei-s  to  be 
applied  by  them  to  the  suj)port  of  Unitarians  was  sustained. 
Ke  Barnett.  21)  (.'58  Vt.  1)  L.  J.  Ch.  (Eng.)  871. 

TJrsuline  Community.  A  bequest  to  Bishop  l-^ngland,  of 
South  Carolina,  in  trust  for  the  ladies  of  the  Ursuliue  order 
residing  in  Charleston,  was  sustained.  It  appeared  that  at 
the  time  the  will  was  executed  there  was  in  Charleston  an 
institution  which  had  been  incorporated  by  the  Iiame  of  "Tlie 
Ladies  Ursnline  Community  of  the  City  of  Charleston,"  and 
it  was  and  now  is  known  and  spoken  of  invariably  as  "The 
Ladies  of  the  Ursuline  Convent"  or  ''order";  and  there  had 
not  been  and  was  not  any  similar  society  or  institution  in 
the  State  of  South  Carolina.  The  designation  in  the  will 
was  deemed  sufficiently  dclinite.  Banks  v  i'liclan,  4  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  SO. 

Young  Men's  Christian  Association.  Testatm-  hcMpicathcil 
the  interest  of  .ifljOOO  yearly  to  help  form  a  ^'oullg  Men's 
Christian  Association.  The  gift  was  sustained.  Coodtll  v 
Union  Association  of  the  Children's  Home,  21>  N.  .1.  lOtj.  ."12. 


WINP]BRENNERIANS 

See  the  article  uii  ('liurcli  of  (lud  at  Ilarrishiirg. 


894 


WITNESS 

Atheist,  895. 

Child,  895. 

Competency,  897. 

Deuf  mute,  899. 

Evidence,  899. 

Idolater,  899. 

Immunity  from  ex:unination,  900. 

Oath,  900.  , 

Party,  religious  belief,  900. 

Quaker,  900. 

Religious  belief,  900. 

Roman  Catholic,  oath  how  administered,  903. 

Universalist,  904. 

Atheist.  In  Anoiiynions,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  446,  it  is  said  that 
the  testimony  oi"  an  atheist  is  not  admissible. 

The  Connecticut  court  permitted  evidence  to  show  that  a 
witness  was  an  atheist.  Beardsly  v  Foot,  2  Root  (Conn.) 
399. 

An  affidavit  cannot  be  excluded  by  the  presentation  of  a 
counter  affidavit  that  the  first  affiant  is  an  atheist,  llis 
competency  cannot  be  questioned  ex  parte,  but  lie  must 
have  an  oi)portunity  to  explain  his  views.  Leonard  v  Ma- 
Tiard,  1  Hall's  Sup.  Ct.  (N.  Y.)  200. 

Child.  Where  a  child  of  tender  years,  upon  hcin^  ex- 
amined by  the  court  as  to  her  competency  to  Icstily  as  a  w  i1- 
ness,  stated  that  if  she  swore  falsely  and  did  wroii^  she 
would  j?o  to  hell,  but  that  if  she  told  the  truth  and  did  ri<;ht 
she  would  go  1o  heaven,  such  answei's  show  ilic  (iiild  to  be 
a  comj)etent  witness  witliont  being  (piestioned  as  lo  her 
belief  in  a  Supreme  Being.     (Jrimes  v  Stale.  lor»  Ala.  SC. 

A  child  nine  years  of  age  testitied.  (»n  a  preliminary 
examination,  that  she  "understood  llie  nature  of  an  oath, 
and  that  if  slie  di<l   not  swear  to  tiie  tnith  she  would  get 

895 


sue,        'v\\\:  ('i\  II.  LAW  and  'iiii:  cm  ucii 

into  Iifll  lilt'."  Slic  \v;is  licid  to  he  ((tiiijM'iciit .  Draper  v 
l>r:i|>cr,  CS  ill.  17. 

A  cliild  (en  years  of  a^c,  upon  cxaiiiinal  ion,  said  she  did 
not  know  Nvliat  (Jo«l  and  llie  laws  of  llie  (•f)niitr3'  would  do 
to  her  if  she  swore  falsel}-,  but  that  she  would  tell  the  truth. 
She  was  held  to  be  a  competent  witness.  Davidson  v  State, 
31)  Tex.  121). 

A  child  can  be  examined  as  a  witness  if  tlH?re  is  a  belief 
in  a  state  of  rewards  and  punishments,  and  a  conviction  that 
punishment  will  follow  falsehood,  although  she  was  ignor- 
ant of  the  meaning  of  an  oath.  Commonwealth  v  Ellenger, 
1  Brewst.  (Pa.)  352. 

It  is  for  the  trial  court  to  determine  after  a  proper 
examination  whether  a  child  understands  the  nature  of  an 
oath,  the  obligation  it  imposes,  and  his  responsibility  to 
the  Supreme  Being  for  not  testifying  to  the  truth.  Com- 
monwealth V  Mullius,  2  Allen  (Mass.)  295. 

A  girl  of  thirteen  years  of  age  called  as  witness  said  she 
understood  an  oath  was  to  tell  the  truth,  and  that  she  would 
be  punished  if  she  did  not,  but  did  not  know  how  or  by 
whom  she  would  be  punished.  Before  being  sworn,  she  was 
instructed  by  a  Christian  minister  who  told  her  God  would 
punish  her  if,  after  taking  the  oath,  she  testified  what  was 
not  true;  and  that  she  did  not  know  this  before.  She  was 
held  to  be  competent.  Commonwealth  v  Lynes.  142  Mass. 
577. 

A  Negro  girl  about  nine  years  of  age  who  said  she  did 
not  know  what  the  Bible  was ;  had  never  been  to  church  but 
once,  and  that  was  to  her  mother's  funeral;  did  not  know 
what  book  it  was  she  laid  her  hand  on  when  sworn  ;  had 
heard  tell  of  God,  but  did  not  know  who  it  was;  and  if  she 
swore  to  a  lie,  she  would  be  put  in  jail,  but  did  not  know 
she  would  be  punished  in  any  other  way,  was  held  incom- 
petent as  a  witness.     Carter  v  State,  G3  Ala.  52. 

In  Jones  v  Brooklyn  B.  and  W.  E.  R.  Co.,  21  St.  Rep. 
(N.  Y.)  IGl),  a  boy  eleven  years  old  testified  that  he  believed 
in  heaven,  the  home  of  God,  and  in  hell,  the  home  of  the  devil. 


WITNIOSS  Sl»7 

thai  at  death  the  good  will  go  to  heaven  and  the  bad  to  hell, 
and  that  it  was  bad  to  lie.  He  was  held  competent  as  a 
witness. 

A  boy  of  twelve  years  who  could  repeat  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
and  had  heard  that  the  bad  man  caught  those  who  lied, 
cursed,  etc.,  but  had  never  heard  of  God,  or  the  devil, Or  of 
heaven  or  hell,  or  of  the  Bible,  and  had  never  heard  and 
had  no  idea  what  became  of  the  good,  or  of  the  bad  alttT 
death,  is  not  a  competent  witness.  State  v  Belton,  24  S.  Car. 
185. 

A  girl  ten  years  old  said  she  attended  Sunday  school,  and 
knew  it  was  wrong  to  tell  a  lie.  It  was  held  not  to  be  error 
to  admit  her  as  a  witness.  Johnson  v  State,  1  Tex.  Ct.  Ajtp. 
(;09. 

Competency.  One  who  believes  in  the  existence  of  God, 
ami  that  an  oath  is  binding  on  the  conscience,  is  a  competent 
witness,  though  he  does  not  believe  in  a  future  state  of 
rewards  and  i»unishnients.     Brock  v  ^lilligan,  10  Ohio  121. 

A  })erson  who  believes  in  a  God,  thougli  not  in  future 
|)unisliments,  is  a  competent  witness.  The  Pennsylvania  act 
of  1SS5  removed  every  form  of  incompetenc3'  including  that 
arising  from  defect  of  religious  belief.  Commonwealtli  v 
Kauffman,  1  I'a.  Co.  Ct.  410. 

No  person  is  incapacitated  from  being  a  witness  on  ac- 
count of  his  religious  belief.  Pei-rv  v  Coiiinionwcalth,  :{ 
Graft.  (Va.)  (>:\2. 

In  Massachusetts  it  was  held  in  (commonwealth  v  Burke, 
1()  Gray  (Mass.)  ^{8,  that  a  person  offered  as  a  witness  could 
not  be  examined  as  to  his  religious  belief.  The  i)urpo.»;e  an<l 
effect  of  the  provision  of  the  general  statutes,  lS(;o,  ehai). 
131,  sec.  12,  were  to  render  persons  who  were  disbelievers 
in  any  religion  competent  witnesses.  :iiid  to  cause  their  dis- 
belief to  be  ju'oved  only  l(»  alVccI   llieii-  ci-edibility. 

A  person  who  docs  not  believe  in  llie  obligation  of  an 
oath,  and  a  future  slaic  of  icwnrds  and  punishments,  or  in 
accountability  after  deatli.  is  not  ;i  fonipj-tenl  witness;  bni 
every  jx'rson  who  does  so  beliive.  wiintevei-  may  be  his  reli- 


S!>S  'nil;   ('l\  IL    LAW     .\M>    Till:   (IN    K'CII 

^ions  creed,  is  cuiiiiielenl ,  heiii;;  sumii  ncciddin;^  In  lii:it 
I'onii  (>r  <):illi  \\lii<li  lie  lioMs  lo  lie  ol»li;:;;it(»ry.  <'iii-lis  v 
Siroiij;,  4   l)jiy   (<\Min. )   ."il. 

TIu'  true  test  of  (•()inj)eteiu\v  is  wlielliei-  :i  person  Ixlieves 
in  the  existence  of  a  God  who  will  punish  iiiiii  if  he  swear 
falsely.  Persons  who  believe  that  fiilnre  punishnient  is  not 
eternal  are  included  in  this  rule.  Cubbison  v  M'Creary,  2 
Watts  &  S.  (l»a.)  262. 

In  Connnonwealth  v  Barnard,  Thach.  (;rini.  Cases  (Mass.) 
431,  a  person  otiered  as  a  witness  at  tirst  testified  that  he 
believed  in  a  God,  but  that  he  considered  an  oath  no  more 
binding  on  his  conscience  than  a  simple  promise.  He 
attached  no  religions  obligation  or  sanctity  to  an  oath.  He 
further  said  that  he  had  no  idea  of  such  a  being  as  the  one 
living  and  true  God,  who  knows  the  secrets  of  all  hearts, 
who  takes  knowledge  of  the  actions  of  men,  and  who  will 
reward  or  punish  them  as  their  conduct  in  this  life  is  good 
or  evil.    He  Avas  held  not  conij)etent  as  a  witness. 

Neither  belief  in  a  Supreme  Being  nor  in  divine  punish- 
ment is  requisite  to  the  competency  of  a  witness  in  Florida. 
The  common  law  rule  does  not  apply  in  that  State.  Clinton 
V  State,  5.3  Fla.  98. 

A  person  believing  in  the  being  of  a  God,  and  in  his  attri- 
butes, as  a  righteous  avenger  of  wickedness,  and  in  the  exist- 
ence of  a  future  state,  is  competent  to  be  sworn  as  a  wit- 
ness. Commonwealth  v  Batchelder,  Thach.  Cr.  Cas.  (Mass.) 
191. 

A  j)erson  who  is  proved  to  have  oi)enly  and  repeatedly 
avowed  that  he  had  no  belief  in  the  existence  of  a  God,  can- 
not be  admitted  to  testify  in  a  court  of  justice.  Norton  v 
Ladd,  4  N.  H.  444. 

A  person's  religious  belief  or  unbelief  cannot  render  him 
incompetent  as  a  witness.    Ewing  v  Bailey,  36  111.  App.  191. 

A  person  is  not  rendered  incomi>etent  by  reason  of  his  dis- 
belief in  God.    Londener  v  Lichten,  11  Mo.  App.  385. 

All  persons  who  believe  in  the  existence  of  a  God  and  a 
future  state,  though  they  disbelieve  in  a  punishment  here- 


WITNESS  SIM» 

al'tei'  lor  crimes  ('(umiiitlcMl  Ihmv,  are  coiiipetent  witnesses. 
Noble  V  People,  1  111.  54  (Breese,  Beecberj. 

It  seems  tbat  a  member  of  an  eleemosynary  corporation  is 
a  competent  witness  in  a  suit  in  wbicb  the  c()ri)<)ration  is  a 
party.    Miller  v  Trustees  of  Mariner's  Church,  7  Me.  51. 

A  person  not  believing;'  in  the  existence  of  a  Suj)ieme  Bein<i 
who  will  punish  false  swearing  is  not  a  competent  witness, 
but  the  objection  to  his  competeucy  must  be  taken  Ix'fore  he 
is  sworn.  After  he  lias  testified  his  disbelief  may  be  shown, 
to  atfect  bis  credibility.  The  People  v  McOarreu,  17  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  4G0. 

A  person  olfered  as  a  witness  is  sid)ject  to  examination  by 
the  court  as  to  his  religious  belief.  Commonwealth  v  Winne- 
more,  1  Brewst.  (Pa.)  35G. 

A  ])erson  is  a  competent  witness  who  believes  in  the  exist- 
ence of  a  God,  and  that  he  will  punish  falsehood  and  jieijnry 
in  this  world,  although  he  does  not  believe  in  future  rewards 
and  jmnishments.    IJlockei-  v  Burness,  2  Ala.  (N.  S.)  :554. 

Deaf  Mute.  A  deaf  and  dumb  person  who  can  be  com- 
municated with  by  signs  is  a  competent  witness  under  our 
statute,  if  he  has  sullicient  disci-etion,  and  understands  that 
perjury  is  punishable  by  law,  though  he  has  no  conce[)tion  of 
the  religious  obligation  of  an  oath.  Snyder  v  Nations,  5 
Blackf.  (Tnd.)  205. 

Evidence.  In  Connecticut,  parol  e\idence  was  admitted 
to  show  that  a  proposed  witness  was  an  infidel  and  (li<l  not 
believe  in  the  being  of  a  (iod  and  in  revealed  religion.  How 
V  Pai'sons,  1  Root  (Conn.)  481. 

Idolater.  In  Ormichund  v  Baiker,  1  \N'ils(»n  K.  \\.  i  Ijig.  i 
84,  the  case  is  stated  as  follows:  An  intidel,  pagan,  idolater 
nuiy  be  a  witness.  It  was  held  by  the  Lonl  Chancellor, 
assisted  by  Lord  ('hief  .Inst ice  Lee,  the  Master  ol  the  Koll.s, 
the  Lord  Chief  Baron,  and  .Justice  Burnett,  that  an  intidel. 
pagan,  idolater  may  be  a  witness,  and  that  his  deposition 
sworn  according  to  the  custom  and  niannei-  of  the  c(»untry 
where  he  lives  may  be  rea<l  in  evidence;  set  tiiai  at  this  day 
it  seems  to  be  settled   that   inliilelitv  ol   anv   kind   doth   not 


!»00  THE  Civil.   LAW  AND  THK  f'HriU^H 

<Xi)  l(»  llic  ((tiiiix'h'iicy  of  ;i  witness.  In  the  dcltiilc  of  this 
l)()int,  IJydcr,  the  attorney-gcii('i;i],  cited  tlie  covonaiil  l)e- 
t ween  .Iiicob  iind  Liil)jni,  Cenesis,  clijip.  IW,  v.  HU,  i)'\,  where 
Jacob  swore  hy  tlie  Tiod  of  Altfjdiain,  and  Labaii  swore  by 
the  God  of  Nahor.     \'i<le  Psalin  11.",;  IOC,  v  .".(I. 

Immunity  from  Examination.  A  witness  cannot  be  i-etjuired 
to  testify  to  his  want  of  belief  in  any  religions  tenet,  nor  to 
divulge  his  opinions  uj)on  matters  of  religious  faiili.  Dedijc 
V  Hopson,  02  Ta.  502. 

Oath.  An  oath  is  an  appeal  to  God,  by  the  witness,  for  the 
truth  of  wiiat  he  declares,  and  imprecation  of  divine  ven- 
geance upon  him,  if  his  testimony  shall  be  false.  The  wit- 
ness must  believe  in  the  existence  of  God.  He  must  believe 
in  rewards  and  punishments  after  death,  and  a  belief  that 
men  will  be  punished  in  this  life  for  their  sins,  but  imme- 
diately after  their  death  be  made  happy,  is  not  sufficient  to 
entitle  a  witness  to  be  sworn.    Atwoocl  v  Welton,  7  Conn.  G6. 

An  oath  is  an  appeal  to  God  to  witness  what  we  say,  and 
we  thus  invoke  punishment  if  what  we  say  be  false.  Mo- 
hammedans may  be  sworn  on  the  Koran ;  Jews  on  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  Gentiles  and  others,  according  to  the  ceremonies 
of  their  religion,  whatever  may  be  the  form.  Jackson  v 
Gridley,  18  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  98. 

Party,  Religious  Belief.  A  party  has  a  right  to  be  a  witness 
in  his  own  behalf,  and  this  is  a  civil  right,  protected  by  the 
constitution.  A  party  who  claims  the  right  to  testify  in  his 
ow'n  behalf  cannot  be  denied  on  the  ground  that  he  does  not 
believe  God  will  punish  perjury.  State  v  I'owers,  51  X.  J.  L. 
432. 

Quaker.  A  Quaker's  testimony  on  his  affirmation  is  ad- 
missible in  an  action  of  debt  on  statute  2  Geo.  11,  chap.  24, 
against  bribery.    Atchesou  v  Everitt,  1  Cowper  (Eng.)  382. 

Religious  Belief.  The  proper  question  to  be  asked  a  wit- 
ness in  order  to  ground  an  objection  to  his  competency  is 
not  whether  he  believes  in  Jesus  Christ,  or  the  holy  gospels, 
but  whether  he  believes  in  God  and  a  future  state.  King  v 
Taylor,  1  Peake's  N.  P.  (Eng.)  11. 


WITNESS  901 

Some  kind  of  religious  belief  lia.s  always  been  considered 
indispensable,  in  order  to  the  binding  obligation  of  an  oath 
on  the  conscience  of  the  one  sworn.  At  times  it  has  been 
deemed  an  essential  prerequisite  that  the  person  sworn 
should  believe  in  all  the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith.  And 
Mr.  Starkie,  in  the  last  edition  of  his  work  on  Evidence, 
says,  "All  persons  may  be  sworn  who  believe  in  the  existence 
of  God,  a  future  state  of  rewards  ami  punishments,  and  in 
the  obligation  of  an  oath."  "It  is  obvious  that  a  sincere 
deist,  a  Mohammedan,  or  a  i)agan  of  a^iy  name,  if  he  believe 
in  the  existence  of  God,  may  feel  tlie  sanction  of  an  oath  as 
binding  upon  his  conscience  as  the  most  devout  Christian." 
Arnold  v  Arnold,  13  Vt.  303. 

This  convent  (Ursuline  Convent)  was  destroyed  by  a  mob 
August  11,  1834.  Twelve  persons  were  indicted  for  capital 
burglary  and  ca])ital  arson,  ^'arious  questions  arose  dur- 
ing the  trial  relating  to  the  competency  of  witnesses,  and  the 
admissibility  of  evidence,  especially  the  right  to  inquire  as 
to  the  religious  faith  and  prejudices  of  the  witnesses  and 
jurors,  and  the  manner  of  administering  oath.  Common- 
wealth v  Buzzell,  16  Pick.  (Mass.)  153. 

In  order  to  be  a  qualified  witness  a  i^erson  must  believe 
in  the  existence  of  a  Deity  and  a  future  state  of  rewards  and 
punishments.  Perry's  Adm.  v  Stewart,  2  Har.  (Del.)  37; 
Wakefield  v  Ross,  5  Mason  (U.  S.)  10. 

In  order  to  test  (he  com]>etency  of  a  witness  on  account 
of  his  religions  belief,  he  may  be  either  interrogated  person- 
ally concerning  it,  or  his  dechirations  to  others  ui>on  the 
subject  may  be  shown.  The  (luestion,  whethci"  or  not  such 
declarations  have  been  correctly  understood  and  reported, 
will,  of  course,  be  open  to  pr(»of  of  a  like  clianutcr.  TIarnd 
v  State,  3S  Tenn.  125. 

A  person  \\h()  does  not  believe  in  the  existence  of  a  God, 
nor  in  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments,  cannot 
be  a  witness  in  a  court  of  justii-e  un(U'r  any  circumstances. 
Jackson  v  GridU'v,  is  .lolms.  (  N.  V.)  i)8. 

NoTi: :  Cnder  tlic  New   Voi"U  constitution    (art.   1.  sec.  3) 


\Hy2  Tin:  (MX  II.   LAW    AM)  Tlli;  ("IHKCII 

as  aiiK'iKk'd  in  ISKi,  "no  [xm-soii  shall  he  i'cihIci'ciI  iiicoin- 
peteut  to  be  a  witneK.s  on  accoiiiii  ol  liis  opiiiioiiK  on  niatterH 
of  relij^ions  belief." 

In  Coinnionwealth  v  liuy.zell,  \i\  Tick.  (Mass.)  l')'.',,  the 
court  held  that  the  relijijious  laitli  ol  a  wiliie.ss  was  not  a 
subject  for  ar<;nnient  or  jM-oof,  loi"  the  pur|)ose  of  showiii}^ 
that  he  was  entitled  to  more  or  less  credit  than  witnesses 
of  a  different  religious  sect;  and  that  un<ler  the  constitution 
aiul  laws  witnesses  of  all  relij^ious  persuasions  are  ])laced  on 
the  same  footing,  and  each  is  to  stand  on  his  own  individual 
character. 

One  who  does  not  believe  in  the  existence  of  God  is  not 
a  comi)etent  witness.  Thurston  v  Whitney,  2  Cush.  (Mass.) 
104. 

An  acknowledgment  of  belief  in  God  and  his  jirovidence  is 
sufficient  to  establish  the  competency  of  a  witness  who  has 
been  objected  to  on  account  of  defective  religious  belief. 
Jones  V  Harris,  1  Strobh.  Law  (S.  Car.)  IGO. 

"A  person  who  believes  there  is  no  God,  is  not  a  comj)etent 
witness."  Scott  v  Hooper,  14  Vt.  535,  citing  Arnold  v 
Arnold,  13  Vt.  302. 

In  Bush  V  Commonwealth,  SO  Ky.  244,  it  was  held  that  a 
rule  which  excludes  a  witness  in  a  criminal  case  on  account 
of  his  religious  belief,  or  his  disbelief  in  any  system  of  reli- 
gion is  in  violation  of  the  constitution  and  the  policy  of 
free  government. 

"One  who  believes  in  the  existence  of  a  Supreme  Being, 
and  that  (lod  will  punish  in  this  world  for  every  sin,  though 
he  does  not  believe  that  punishment  will  be  inflicted  in  the 
world  to  come,  is  a  competent  witness."  Shaw  v  Moore,  40 
N.  C.  25. 

Evidence  is  admissible  that  a  witness  does  not  believe  in 
a  God  nor  in  future  rewards  and  punishments.  Arnd  v 
Amling,  53  Md.  102. 

A  person  who  does  not  believe  in  the  existeme  of  a  God 
other  than  nature,  nor  in  a  future  state  of  existence  is  not  a 
ct)inj)elent  witness.   U.  S.  v  Brooks.  4  ('ranch  C.  C.  (T.  S.)  427. 


WITNESS  00:^ 

A  person  wlio  lias  no  i('li;;i(»us  Ix'lief,  wlio  dot's  ii(»t  ac- 
knowledge a  Snprenie  licini;,  and  who  does  not  leel  liiiiiself 
accountable  to  any  iiioial  pnnishnient  here  or  hereafter, 
but  who  acknowledjics  liis  amenability  to  the  criminal  law, 
if  he  forswears  himscir.  cannol  become  a  witness.  Central 
Military  Tract  K.  K.  ('(..  v  Kockafellow .  17  III.  :>n. 

Tn  I'ennsylvania  a  belief  in  a  fntnic  slate  of  i'e\var<l  and 
jdinislimeiit  is  not  essential  to  the  com|»eteiicv  of  a  witness, 
nor  is  it  cause  of  exclnsion  (hat  one  does  not  believe  in  llie 
inspired  character  of  the  liible.  The  test  of  com|tetency  is 
whether  the  witness  believes  in  the  existence  of  a  (lod  who 
will  punish  him  if  he  sweai-s  falsely,  lint  wlietliei-  the  jmn- 
ishment  will  be  lemjiorary  or  eternal,  inllicted  in  this  \v(M'ld 
or  that  to  come,  is  immaterial  ui>on  the  tpiestion  of  compe- 
tency.   Blair  v  Seaver,  2fi  Pa.  274. 

In  U.  S.  V  Kennedy,  .*>  McLean  (V.  S.  i  17.")  it  was  held 
that  a  witness  to  be  competent  must  believe  in  (!od,  and  in 
rewards  and  punishments,  but  that  he  is  competent  if  these 
are  received  in  this  life. 

In  State  v  Townsend,  2  Ilarr.  (Del.i  54:5,  it  was  held  that 
a  person  could  not  be  a  witness  who  did  not  believe  in  a  (i<»d 
and  a  future  slate  (d"  existence. 

A  jterson  who  believes  in  a  (Jod  and  also  in  I  lie  Ilible.  but 
does  not  believe  that  the  only  ]tnnislinient  inllicted  fttr 
wronjijs  in  this  life  is  the  ]»anins  of  a  j^uilty  conscience,  or 
in  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments  after  death, 
is  a  comjtetent  witness.  Hennett  \-  Slate,  I  Swan  (Tenn.i 
111. 

Roman  Catholic,  Oath  How  Administered.  In  ("(ininmn- 
weallh  V  Buzzell,  IC  I'ick.  (Mass.  i  I.".;;.  I.'.C.  et.  se(|.  (:'.:: 
Mass.  I,  in  the  course  of  the  tiial  the  wit  nesses  wci-e  severally 
called  to  be  sworn  on  the  Holy  l]\  an^clists.  When  Uishoji 
Fenwick  was  called  to  take  llie  oaili.  he  in(|nii-e(|  the  reason 
for  this  <li still ct  ion,  and  objected  to  it,  if  this  depart ni-e  from 
the  usual  form  was  inteinled  oi-  coiiM  be  ccnistrued  as  estab- 
lishinjj  an  invidious  dislinclion  iiuainsl  ('atholics.  NN'here- 
Up(Ml    it    was   stated    by    the   eonil.    llial    wlielhel-    the  oalli    be 


!)iii        'nil;  ciN  1  L  LAW  A.\h  'i'lii;  cmKcii 

l;ik('ii  ill  IIk!  iisii;i1  mode,  \)\  iioidiii^  lip  llic  liaiid,  or  any 
ollici-,  il  is  ill  I;i\\'  ('(pi.-illy  hiiKliii;:.  ;iinl  tliat  l'jils(;  test iiiiony 
ill  cillicr  case  would  ('(piallv  siilijcd  ilic  party  guilty  to  the 
punisliiiiciils  <»r  jicrjiiiy.  It  was  also  a  rule  of  law,  now 
adopted  in  practice,  tliat  a  witness  in  to  l)e  sworn,  accord- 
iiio  to  the  loiiii  wliicli  lie  Indds  to  be  the  most  solemn,  and 
wliicli  is  sanctilied  by  the  nsa^c  of  the  country  or  of  the  sect 
to  which  he  belon<»s.  It  is  well  understood  as  a  matter  of 
jiciieral  notoriety,  that  those  who  profess  the  Catholic  faith 
are  usually  sworn  on  the  Holy  Evanjielists,  and  generally 
regard  that  as  the  most  solemn  foini  of  oath,  and  for  this 
reason  alone  that  mode  is  directed  in  this  court,  in  case  of 
administering  the  oath  to  Catholic  witnesses.  This  is  done 
by  the  witness  placing  his  hand  upon  the  book,  whilst  the 
oath  is  administered,  and  kissing  it  afterward.  The  oath 
was  then  administered  to  Bisliop  Feuwick  in  this  form. 

TJniversalist.  One  who  believes  in  the  existence  of  a  God, 
who  will  pnnish  him  if  he  swears  falsely  is  a  competent  wit- 
ness. This  includes  a  Universal] st  who  believes  that  future 
])unishment  will  not  be  eternal.  Butts  v  Swartwood,  2  Cow. 
(N.  Y.)  431. 


YOUNG  MEN'S  CHRISTIAN  ASSOCIATION 

Auxiliary,  905. 
Property,  limitation,  905. 
Taxation,  906. 

Auxiliary.  The  Auxiliary  of  the  Y()uii<i:  Men's  Clirisliaii 
Association  is  a  society  composed  of  women,  whose  object 
is  to  extend  spiritual,  intellectual,  social,  and  financial  liel[) 
to  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association  of  Nashua.  The 
purpose  of  the  latter  association,  as  set  forth  in  lis  charter, 
is  to  improve  the  spiritual,  intellectual  and  social  condition 
of  the  young  men  of  Nashua,  and  its  property  to  tlie  amount 
of  125,000  is  thereby  exempted  from  taxation,  it  is  deemed 
a  charitable  institution,  and  its  })roperty  is  exempt  from 
taxation  and  tlie  Woman's  Auxiliary  belongs  to  the  same 
class.    Carter  v  Whitcomb,  74  N.  H.  482. 

Property,  Limitation.  A  corporation  known  as  the  Young 
Men's  Christian  Association  of  Decatur,  Illinois,  was  duly 
formed  under  the  Illinois  statute,  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
moting growth  in  grace  and  Christian  fellowship  among 
its  members,  and  aggressive  Christian  Avork,  esi»e(ially  by 
and  for  young  men,  and  to  seek  out  and  aid  tlie  worthy  poor. 
It  prescribed  no  fo)-ni  of  worshij)  and  impo.sed  no  obligations 
on  its  members  in  this  respect.  Tlie  assotiation  was  not 
subject  to  the  limitation  contained  in  the  Illinois  statute 
prohibiting  a  religious  corjxjration  from  liolding  more  than 
ten  aci-es  of  land,  an<l  therefore  a  devise  of  an  undivided  om* 
half  of  1(50  acres  to  the  Association  was  sustainol. 

Incidentally,  the  court  observcMJ  llnil  (incslions  relating 
to  the  amount  of  j)roi)erty  whieh  a  lorixualion  might  take 
under  statutory  limitations  were  to  be  determined  only  on 
the  application  of  the  State,  and  ii(»t  of  parlies  interested  in 
the  projjerty  itself.     Hamsher  v  Hanislier,  i;'.2  111.  27:5. 

yoo 


!MMi  'nil']  ("I  NIL    LAW    A  M  »   Til  I!   »IM    l.'<ll 

Taxation.  'IMic  ;iss()(i;i(ioii  in  AiiImiiii,  ]\Liiii<',  owntd  i*-,\\ 
csLilc  v;i1ii(m1  :iI  .1?LMK0()(»;  m  |M»rli<>ii  of  I  lie  |iro|»citv  \\;is  N-t 
r«»r  ji  l»(»;inliii^'  Iionsc,  :iii<l  jinollicr  portion  lor  stores.  Am 
jis.si'ssnn'nt  ofsl(>,(HM)  \v;is  nindc  on  tlic  nonc'ccniptcd  poi-lion 
of  tlic  j>rop('rt_v.  II  w;is  licld  tlnil  the  rented  porli(»n  of  the 
property  w;is  liable  to  ta.xatioii.  Aulmrn  v  V.  M.  C  A., 
Aid)iirn,  StI  Me.  244;  see  also  the  article  on  Kelij^ious  Wor- 
ship, subtitle  Buildiugs,  Exemption  from  Taxatiou. 


INDEX 


Abbott,  Francis  E.,  chango  of  n*- 
ligious  opinions,  849. 

Actions,  general  article,  1;  agent, 
when  liable,  1;  architect  for 
plans,  2;  building  comniittee,  2; 
compromise,  when  effect ual,  -i; 
corporation  against  majority  of 
members,  4;  damages  against  rail- 
road company  for  disturbing  re- 
ligious services,  4;  debts,  a; 
ejectment,  5;  elections,  tj;  forci- 
ble entry  and  detainer,  (i;  juror, 
(i;  mechanic's  lien,  7;  minister's 
salary,  8,  348;  minister,  statute 
of  limitations,  13;  partition,  13; 
jHTSonal  judgment,  when  not 
proper,  14;  promissory  note,  14; 
(luieting  title,  15;  rector,  deposi- 
tion, when  no  action  for  damages. 
If);  reforming  deed,  15;  n'|)levin 
f(jr  seal,  16;  Shakers,  1(3;  specific 
performance,  16;  title,  action  to 
compel  conveyance,  16;  trespjuss, 
16;  trustees,  de  facto,  18;  trus- 
tees, Illinois  rule,  18;  trustees. 
New  ^'ork  rule,  18;  trustees, 
restraining  unauthorized  acts,  18; 
trustees,  right  to  sue,  19;  trus- 
tees, title  to  ofhce,  20;  unincor- 
IKjrated  associations,  20;  unin- 
cori)orated  society,  20;  when 
minister  cannot  recover  parish 
fund,  184;  damages  not  recover- 
able for  disturbing  person  in 
religious  meeting,  202;  Evangel- 
ical Association,  Des  Moines 
Annual  Conference,  relative  to 
status  of  Bishop,  243;  non(> 
by  trustees  after  term  expires, 
246;  Universalist  Church,  how 
brought,  H{')r). 

Acts,  15;  ([uoted,   111. 

Adams,  R.ev.  lulward  P.,  pastor  of 
Presbyterian  Church,  Dunkirk, 
deposed,  .377. 


Adverse  Possession,  when  not  su.s- 
tained,  15;  30  years'  occu|)ancy, 
17;  burial  groimd,  58;  notes  rel- 
ative to,  521. 

Advowson,  note  on,  bequest  in- 
valid, 825. 

A  f  r  i  c  a  n  M  e  t  h  o  d  i  s  t  Episcopal 
Church,  organization,  21;  amend- 
ing charter,  21;  dismissing  p;utor, 
21;  municipal  ordinance  against 
meetings,  21;  Similar  to  Metho<l- 
ist  Episcopal  Cluuch,  21;  charter 
cannot  be  amendetl  without  pn-- 
vioiLs  notice,  21;  action  of  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South, 
relative  to,  366. 

Agent,  when  reliable  on  society 
note,  1;  when  may  mainlain 
action  for  forcible  entry  and 
detainer,  6;  trustees  giving  i)rom- 
i.s.sory  note  for  materials.  14; 
appointment  on  Sunday,  when 
valid,  745;  unauthorized  accept- 
ance invalid,  745. 

Alabama,  declaration  of  rights,  re- 
ligious freedom,  625. 

.Miuska,  |)roperly  of  Lutherans,  how 
affected  by  cession  to  l'nile<l 
States,  298;  Russian  toleration  of 
Lutherans  in,  30(). 

.Vh'xander  VL  Pope,  graiU  of  clnirch 
jirivileges  by,  685,  (')S7. 

.\mana  Society,  civil  courts  will 
not  settle  differences  in  chmmI, 
142;  described,  167 

.American  Bible  Society,  contribu- 
tion from  Methodist  I''.i)iscopaI 
churches,  338;  trust  for,  sii.s- 
lained,  829. 

.\merican  Home  Missionary  Society, 
becjucst  sustained,  22;  succeeded 
by  Congregational  Home  Mis- 
sionary Society,   181. 

.\meri<'an  Uevolulioii,  did  not  affect 
right  of  P.ritish  corjioralions  to 
holil  property  in  I'niled  Slates,  70. 


907 


!M)S 


[\i)i:x 


Amcriciiii  Society  for  Ameliorating 
the  ( 'oiiditioii  of  I  lie  .Jews,  en- 
titled to  lewiey,  S80. 

Atneriean  Sunday  School  Union, 
f<ubj«'et  to  taxation  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, 793. 

Amos,  .John  II.,  .Indue,  what  consti- 
tutes religious  worship,  6.54. 

Andrew  Chapel,  Savannah,  note  on, 
367. 

Annual  Conference,  Evangelical  As- 
sociation, 241,  244;  FA'angelieal 
Association,  status  of  adherents 
of  Philadelphia  Conference,  no 
power  to  ai)y)oint  ministers,  247; 
United  Brethren  in  Christ,  8.5.5, 
8.57;  Wesleyan  Methodist,  875. 

Aj)peal,  none  in  Baptist  Church,  .34; 
from  decision  of  church  ju- 
dicatui-e,  when  civil  courts  may 
exercise  jurisdiction,  130. 

Arbitration,  church  rule,  23;  when 
conclusive,  128;  question  of  sale 
of  church  property  cannot  be 
submitted  to,  346;  trustees,  title 
to  office  cannot  be  determined 
by,  346;  award  on  Sunday,  void, 
746,  758. 

Archbishop,  of  Cashel  not  a  cor- 
poration, 47;  deed  of  burial 
ground  to,  eflfect,  59;  may  direct 
use  of  bequest,  80;  when  mort- 
gage by,  void,  417;  bequest  for 
masses  sustained,  471;  when  may 
appoint  directors  of  corporation, 
6.58;  title  to  property,  6.59;  as- 
signment for  creditors,  663;  Inde- 
pendent society  cannot  be  com- 
pelled to  transfer  property  to, 
672;  general  powers,  681;  when 
utterances  concerning  priest  con- 
stitute slander,  727;  moral  trust, 
826. 

Architect,  action  for  plans,  2. 

Arminians,  alleged  persecution  of 
Lutherans,  304. 

Arminius,  doctrines  noted,  250. 

Articles  of  Religion,  description,  24. 

Asbury,  Francis,  bishop  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  noted,  884; 
devise  to  him  for  Methodist  so- 
ciety and  a  school,  unincorpor- 
ated, invalid,  893. 

Asbury  Park,  liquor  license  invahd 
if  sale  within  one  mile  from  Ocean 
Grove,  55. 


As.sociate  Reformed  Church,  history 
.'ind  form  of  goveniment,  25; 
des(ribe<l,  26;  synod,  power,  27; 
union  of  Assfx-iate  and  .X.ssociate 
Reformed  Churches,  27;  union 
with  Presbyterian  C'hurch,  28; 
mi.ssions,  bequ«'sts  sustained,  29; 
synod  of  New  York,  25,  26; 
general  synods  of  the  west,  25; 
general  synod,  25;  government 
Presbyterian  in  form,  20,  28; 
merged  in  Presbyterian  Church, 
merger  invalid,  26;  Theological 
Seminary  establi.she<l,  28;  will 
relating  to,  512;  Theological  Semi- 
nary, transfer  of  trast  funds 
denied,  838. 

Association,  Baptist,  powers  and 
functions,  33. 

Auburn  Theological  Seminary,  be- 
quest for,  sustained,  826,  876. 

Avigsburg  Confession,  basis  of  cer- 
tain religious  doctrines,  269; 
adoi)ted  by  Lutherans,  300; 
adopted  by  the  Norwegian  Evan- 
gehcal  Lutherans,  425;  described, 
545. 

B 

Baldwin,  Henrj',  Judge,  decision  on 
legacy  to  unincorporated  society, 
267;  opinion,  rehgious  toleration 
in  Pennsylvania,  676. 

Baltimore  Church  Home  and  In- 
firmarj',  note  on,  549. 

Baltimore  Conference,  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  status,  prop- 
erty rights  considered,  336;  338, 
357;  joins  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  362;  new  Confer- 
ence organized,  attached  to  orig- 
inal church,  362. 

Baltimore  Yearly  Meeting,  Friends, 
noted,  262. 

Baptism,  place  of,  injunction  denied 
restraining  interference  with,  283. 

Baptist  Church,  articles  of  faith 
may  be  altered,  30;  Baptist 
Association,  31;  congregation, 
powers,  32;  creed,  32;  English 
toleration,  32;  government,  33; 
m.ijoritj'  may  control  property, 
34;  minority,  right  to  control 
property,  35;  missions,  36;  offi- 
cers, 36;  pastor,  how  settled.  37; 
property,   control  of,   37;   Texas 


iNi»i:x 


!Mi:i 


general  ronvcntion,  37;  local  so- 
ciety indt^iK'ncicnt,  31 ;  iissocia- 
tion,  Hjosscnger,  funcrtion,  31; 
local  society  a  deniocracy,  33,  30; 
no  const itvif ion,  33;  pjustor  and 
deacons  only  ofTicc'rs,  3(5;  two 
elements,  church  and  society,  37; 
proiMTty,  cfjnli'oiled  hy  conj^rega- 
tion  and  tiMistces,  37;  deacons, 
ex  officio  tnist(>es,  KHi;  when 
jiastor  lestrained  from  using 
church,  289. 

Barbarians,  invading  Roman  Em- 
pire, protected  church  j^roperty, 
682. 

Barclay's  Treatise  on  Church  Gov- 
ernment, quoted,  223. 

Belief,  Religious.  See  Rehgious  Be- 
lief. 

Bells,  cliimc,  bequest  sustained,  39; 
fixtiu-e,  39;  injunction  again.st 
ringing,  39,  40;  nuisance,  40; 
chimes,  keeping  in  rejiair,  80. 

Benedict,  St.,  founder  of  order  of 
St.  Benedict,  172. 

Bible,  insj)inition,  41;  New  Testa- 
ment, 41;  not  a  sectarian  book, 
41,  4.''),  7ir);  Old  Testament,  42; 
Protestant  translations,  42; 
schools,  use  in,  43;  versions,  4G; 
school  authorities  to  determine 
question  as  to  use  of,  40;  only 
creed  of  Cami)bellites,  51;  basis 
of  ecclesia.st ical  government,  101; 
constitution  in  liarniony  with, 
100;  only  creed,  Church  of  Clod 
at  Ilarrisburg,  124;  ('ongrega- 
tionalist,  oiih'  standard  in  test 
of  religious  truth,  179;  biusis  of 
Protestant  reformation,  54.');  gov- 
ernment not  capable  of  intcr- 
jm'ting,  .593;  may  be  used  in 
Cirard  College,  .594;  in  schools, 
note  on,  054;  Iowa,  use  in  schools, 
71.3;  rea<iing  in  school  in  M;issa- 
chusetts,  713;  Texius,  use  in  i)ublic 
schools  sustained,  717;  reading  in 
school  constitutes  sectarian  in- 
struction, 71S;  quoted  a.s  to  form 
of  oath  between  .Jacob  and 
Laban,  899. 

Biim's  Meeting,  Kriends,  note  on, 
202. 

Bishop,  first  Protestant  Episcopal 
in  America,  47;  leg.acy  to  est.ab- 
li.sh  in  America,  47;  office  not   a 


corporation,  47;  witness,  meaning 
of  canon,  48;  beque^st  for  chari- 
table purpose,  ofFiciid  not  i)er- 
sonal,  79;  ]iro(;edure  and  charges 
against  rector,  222;  Evangelical 
Association,  241,  244;  Evangelical 
As.sociation.  depo.sed,  242;  Meth- 
odist Ejii.scopal  Church,  pow«'r 
to  consolidate"  .societies,  339;  con- 
.sent  of  needed  for  mortgage,  418; 
(ieorgia,  property  held  in  trust, 
.500;  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
relation  to  priest,  0.59,  678;  au- 
thority, 000;  control  over  priest, 
000;  liability  on  contract,  661; 
not  liable  for  priest's  salary,  001; 
general  jjowers,  (iOl;  general  su- 
pervision, (502;  title  to  i)rop<'rty, 
0(>3,  ()()4,  (581;  when  holds  prop- 
erty in  triLst,  604,  605;  when  not 
liable  in  damages,  (")0();  may 
remove  or  suspend  priest,  079; 
when  priest  not  bishoi)'s  agent, 
080;  when  ])riest  luus  no  action 
against,  081;  no  title  to  sul>- 
scription  for  church  edifice,  737, 
740;  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
trust  for  local  parish,  820;  death 
of,  tru.st  pius.ses  to  coiu-t,  826;  to 
be  established,  legacy  for,  sus- 
tained, 877. 

Blasphemy,  described,  49,  98;  liis- 
torical  sketch,  49. 

Board  of  Church  Erection  Fund, 
Presbyterian  Church,  note<l,  410. 

Board  of  Publication,  I'A'angelical 
A.sso  c  i  a  t  i  o  n,  composit  ion  and 
j)owers,  242;  fixing  meeting  i)lace 
of  (leneral  Conference,  243,  24(5. 

Iiona|)arte,  Napoleon,  cession  of 
Louisiana,  exacted  religious  free- 
dom for  inhabitants,  (521. 

Bohemian  Roman  Catholic  Central 
Tnion,  member,  susjx'nsion,  tt- 
fe<-t,  (570. 

Book  Concern,  Methodist  Epi.scopal 
Church,  established,  .340;  interest 
of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  in,  340,  3(53. 

Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants, 
Mormon,  noted,  409;  marriage 
covenant,  412;  revelations  noted 
in,  414. 

Boston  Young  Men's  Marine  Bible 
Society,  designated  by  court  to 
.administer  trust,  8;i5. 


1110 


ixi>i;.\ 


Uoiivicr's  Law  I  )icl  ionaiy,  <|iiiil((l, 
ilcfiniiiK  cliaprl,  (17. 

Howiiiaii,  Samuel,  liislioj),  .Me- 
morial ('luircli,  15;?. 

liroad,  bcMiucst  for  supplyitiji,  70. 

Hnnvrr,  M.  H.  H.,  Mctliodist  Mis- 
sion at  Wascoi)um,  Oregon,  ',i')'2. 

ikitish  subjects,  rifj;lits  iJiotectcfl  by 
treaty  of  peace,  70. 

lirockway,  Rev.  .\lbert  A.,  rector, 
note  on  transfer,  r)5!). 

IJrowne,  Robert,  founded  sect  of 
Independents,  2S2. 

Buildinfj,  church  is,  under  mechan- 
ic's lien  law,  S. 

Buildinp;  Committee,  when  not 
personally  liai)le,  2;  when  liable, 
2,  3;  action  may  be  ratified  by 
society,  3;  when  not  liable,  14, 
629;  powers,  808. 

Building  contract,  when  trustees 
Hable  on,  17. 

By-Laws,  when  property  bound  by 
subsequent  alterations,  54;  regu- 
lating elections,  234;  may  be 
modified  by  subsequent  meeting, 
235,  314;  admission  of  member, 
317;  parish,  439;  regulating  for- 
fcitui'e  of  pews,  455;  regulating 
interments,  sustained,  538;  effect 
as  contract,  601;  power  to  make, 
629;  society's  authority  to  make, 
808;  may  regulate  powers  of 
trustees,  808;  assessment  of  pew 
holders,  808;  Universalist  Churcli, 
relative  to  pews,  805;  Universalist 
Church,  stock  certificates,  800; 
fixing  qualifications  of  voters,  870. 


California  Missions,  status,  666. 

Call,  minister  described,  373;  rela- 
tion to  congregation,  373. 

Calvin,  John,  Disciples  establish 
Presbyterian  Church,  482;  rela- 
tion to  Protestant  reformation, 
545. 

Calvinists,  members  of  German  so- 
ciety, 276;  note  on,  575. 

Calvinistic  Baptists,  minister  s, 
scope  of  ordination,  374. 

Cambridge  Platform,  cited,  organ- 
ization of  Congregational  Church, 
183. 

Campbell,    Alexander,    founder    of 


Campbelliles,  51;  quoted  organ- 
ization of  cliurch,  19H. 

( 'am|)l)('llites,  congregation,  jmiwith, 
51 ;  m.'ijority,  control  of  j)roperty, 
52;  division,  two  |)arties,  52. 

Camp  Meetings,  by  laws,  54;  eiuM- 
ment,  54;  municipal  onlinance, 
54;  Ocean  Grove  A.s.s(Kiati<jn,  54; 
Sunday  admi.ssion  fee,  .55;  taxa- 
ti(jn  of  y)roj)erty,  55;  temperance, 
50;  title  to  jjroperty,  50;  traffic, 
limitation,  50;  di.sturbing,  205, 
213;  religious  worship  at,  651; 
erection  of  public  buildings  and 
cottages,  729;  (;ompul.sory  pay- 
ment of  admi-ssion  fee  violates 
Sunday  law,  751;  jK-nsons  may 
lawfully  travel  by  railroad  on 
Sunday  to  attend,  780. 

Canada,  United  Brethr(;n  in  Christ, 
note  on,  853. 

Canon  Law,  authority  limited,  173; 
instituted  by  apostles,  232. 

Cary,  Rev.  George,  superintendent 
Methodi.st  Mission  in  Oregon,  352. 

Catholic  Knights  of  \\'isconsin,  note 
on,  667. 

Cayuse  War,  Oregon,  note  on,  354. 

Cemetery,  mechanic's  lien  cannot 
be  enforced  against,  8;  acce.ss  to 
lot,  58;  adverse  pos.session,  58; 
chiuch  yard,  59;  disinterment, 
state  control,  59;  ecclesia.stical 
jurisdiction,  60;  free  burial 
ground,  60;  legislature,  power  to 
direct  sale,  60;  lot  o\\Tiers  right, 
61;  mechanic's  lien,  63;  nnmicipal 
ordinance,  t)3;  park,  taking  fur, 
64;  Roman  Catholic,  religious 
test,  64;  sale,  appUcation  of  pro- 
ceeds, reinterment,  64;  suicide, 
65;  title,  lea.se  or  fee,  65;  title 
of  grantee  of  lot,  65;  town, 
English  rule,  65;  tomb  owners' 
right,  ti5;  tombstone,  title,  6<j; 
removal  of  remains,  legislature 
may  authorize,  05;  may  restrict 
interments  and  authorize  re- 
moval of  remains,  00,  04;  injunc- 
tion restraining  interference  with 
access  to  lot,  283:  granted  to 
prevent  sale  of  lot,  284;  Catholic, 
mandamus  refused  for  burial  of 
Freema.son,  308;  bishop's  title  to 
land,  003;  when  land  subject  to 
taxation,   666;   Roman  Catholic, 


ixi)i:x 


!)11 


Frcc'ma.son  not  ontillol  to  Ixirial 
in,  G67;  rocoivcd  for  prico  of  lot, 
effect,  GGS;  Roman  Catholic,  sui- 
cide not  entitled  to  burial  in,  GG9; 
New  York,  exempt  from  taxa- 
tion, 79:5. 

Center  (yollegc,  Danville,  Kentucky, 
fiuestion  a-s  to  election  of  trus- 
tees, 483. 

Central  New  York  Diocese,  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church,  note  on, 
550;  legacy  for,  sustained,  cS80. 

Chancel,  bequest  for  repair  sus- 
tained, 71. 

Chapel,  defined,  67;  bequest  for 
sustained,  71;  Massachusetts,  be- 
quest for  in  Ireland  sustained, 
I'.i;  Unitarian,  becjuest  for  sas- 
tained,  82;  cannot  become  inde- 
pendent of  parent  church,  G3(). 

Charitable  Use,  defined,  68;  de- 
scribed, 69;  history,  60;  bene\- 
olent  institutions.  69;  bread  aTid 
education,  70;  J5rilish  cor])ora- 
tion,  how  affected  by  Am(>rican 
lievolution,  70;  chapel,  71;  church 
yard,  rejjair  of  vault,  71;  common 
law,  71;  diversion,  72;  donors' 
opinions,  72;  foreign  country,  73; 
(leorgia,  73;  hospitalitj'  not  a 
charitable  u.se,  73;  Illinois,  74; 
incorporated  society,  74;  indef- 
inite, 74;  limitation  of,  cy  ])res, 
75;  Maine,  76;  Massachu.setts.  76; 
masses,  76;  New  \'ork,  77;  Or- 
phan Asylum,  77;  religious  read- 
ing, 77;  religious  services,  77; 
Roman  Catholic,  clergymen,  80; 
sermons  ami  music,  80;  Shakers, 
80;  South  Carolina,  81;  Sunday 
school,  diversion,  81;  unincor- 
porated society,  SI;  Unitaiian, 
82;  vault  and  loml),  n'pairs,  82; 
ecclesiastical  authorities  to  reg- 
ulate administration  of,  128;  gift 
for  services,  sustained,  471;  Cal- 
ifornia, gift  for  m;i.s.ses  sustained, 
474;  be<|uest  to  Reformed  Dutch 
Church,  585. 

Charity,  alteration  or  diversion,  in- 
valid, 1;  beneficiaries,  pre.><ent  or 
future,  84;  defined,  84;  history, 
84;  discretion  of  trust<'es,  84; 
Di.s.senters,  85;  donor's  intention, 
86;  foreign  coriioration,  86;  iden- 
tifying beneficiary,  87;  indefinite, 


S7;  Irving  society,  87;  I'arlia- 
mentary  restriction.  8.S;  ])oor  8.S; 
principles  universal,  88;  religious 
exercises  and  .self-<ieniai,  89;  re- 
ligious instruction,  89;  trustees  to 
account,  90;  uncertainty,  fre<' 
churche-;.  90;  unincorporated  so- 
ciety, 90;  Spiritualists,  sastained, 
730;  beciuest  for  care  of  cemeterv 
lots  invalid,  827. 

Charles  V,  lOmperor  of  C}erman>', 
beginning  of  Protestantism,  54o. 

Charters  and  General  Laws  of 
Ma.ssachu.setts,  cited,  organiza- 
tion of  Congregational  churches, 
182. 

Chesterfield  Preparative  Meeting, 
Friends,  note  on,  2(>1. 

Children,  poor,  beciuest  for,  75; 
ward,  religious  education.  281; 
entitle<l  to  be  instructed  in  re- 
ligion of  parents,  500;  parental 
neglect,  note  on,  597;  a.s  members 
of  corporation,  610;  i)arental  duty 
ti-s  to  rights  of  con.>^cience,  ()22; 
neglecting  to  furnish  medical 
aid  for,  649;  child  as  witness, 
895. 

Christ,  Jesus,  all  Christians  believe 
in  him,  98;  believers  constitute 
church.  108. 

Christ  Church.  New  York,  formed 
from  Trinity  Church,  304. 

Christian,  defined.  97,  98;  general 
chi.s.sifieation,  97. 

Christian  Catholic  Ajiostolic  Church 
of  Zion,  founded  by  .lohn  .\Ie\- 
ander  Dowie,  148. 

Christian  Church,  formed  fiom  divi- 
sion of  Campbelliles.  .VJ;  organ- 
ization. 92;  form  of  government. 
93;  changing  doctrine.  9;!;  ( "hiuch 
of  Christ.  94;  division.  efTect  on 
property  rights.  94;  incorpora- 
tion, efTect,  95;  oflicers  constitute 
cor|)oration.  96;  tinincorporated 
society,  96;  when  entitkil  to  u.-<e 
propertv  owned  bv  other  .socie- 
ties, .530. 

Christ ianilv,  Christian,  defined,  97; 
blasf)heiny.  98;  Ilngland.  98;  law 
of  the  land.  9S;  Sla.'^saclnwtts. 
99;  nation.  99;  New  York,  99; 
Ohio,  100;  Pennsylvania.  1(K); 
scope  of  influence.  100;  part  of 
common    law,    113;   .synonymoua 


!»r_' 


[.\hi:x 


with  (j;()s|i('l,  277;  tcacliiiin  nut 
|)iohil)i)('(l  ill  (iininl  ( 'oIIckc,  .')'.i\. 

('Iiristiiin  Missioriiiry  Socirty,  ln- 
(|iu's(  .siisliiiiK'd,  102. 

( "lirisliaii  Science,  (lescrified,  KKJ; 
expulsion  oi  memlx-rs,  \()'.',;  Iieulei-, 
kiiowledjie  re(|uiie<l,  lO.'J;  iiiedicul 
attendance,  religious  In-lief,  Ui'.i; 
Missouri  const  it  iil  ion,  104;  Penn- 
sylvania constitution,  104;  Sun- 
day school  treasurer,  10;"). 

Christmas  Festival,  not  a  ineetiiiK 
for  worship,  201 ;  when  a  re- 
ligious service,  201. 

Church,  defined,  10(1;  Universal  and 
Particular,  108;  authority  over 
members,  108;  church  purpose, 
109;  church,  separate  from  so- 
ciety, 109;  classification,  109; 
Congregational,  defined,  109;  con- 
secration, 110;  cnM'd  and  polity, 
110;  discipline,  subordinate  to 
state  law,  110;  division,  110; 
doctrinal  controversy.  111;  ele- 
ments, 112;  expulsion  of  members, 
112;  extinct,  what  constitutes, 
112;  house  of  worship,  112;  incor- 
poration, efTect,  113;  independ- 
ence, 113;  lectui'e  room,  113; 
legislative  power,  113;  liquor  tax 
law,  114;  majority,  power,  114; 
merger,  115;  minister,  liability 
for  libel,  115;  organic  law,  115; 
property,  beneficiaries,  110;  rela- 
tion to  congregation,  11(3;  rules 
and  regulations,  effect,  116;  sew- 
ing circle,  117;  temporalities  de- 
fined, 117;  territorial  limitation, 
117;  union,  117;  \'irginia,  cannot 
be  incorporated,  117;  who  con- 
stitute, 117,  (')45;  building  u.sed 
for  social  gatherings,  effect,  113; 
differs  from  parish,  181;  juris- 
diction over  belief  of  members, 
223;  Scotland,  Kirk,  status  of, 
230,  when  doctrines  may  not  be 
changed,  253;  ecjualitj'  of  mem- 
bers, 318;  relation  to  corporation, 
321;  separation  from  state,  32(3; 
investigations,  when  not  binding 
on  civil  comts,  1341;  should  .sup- 
port religious  teachers,  399;  when 
cannot  be  consolidated  with  an- 
other denomination,  584,  600; 
relation  to  state,  590;  members 
originally  had  exclusive  right  of 


siilTrage,  .591;  m.iy  not  contract 
lor  excursion,  (M)2;  dcnomiii.'i- 
tional  character,  (iOI;  when  not 
liable  in  damages  for  injury 
icceived  by  ••mployee,  607;  f)rop- 
erty  liable  to  assessment  for  local 
ini|)rovements,  61;';  cotnpul.sory 
attendance  proliibitrd,  625;  may 
change  denominational  n-lations, 
630;  when  minority  controls,  (5:^6; 
freedom  of  organization,  637; 
individual  rights,  (V.iH;  members, 
when  inflividually  liable  for  debts, 
(»4I;  self  government,  642;  se|>- 
aration,  efTect,  642;  threefold 
aspect,  643;  withdrawal,  effect, 
645;  secession,  when  an  abandon- 
ment, 695;  when  seceders  cannot 
make  independent  church,  698; 
property,  sacred  character  of, 
protected  by  barbarians,  ()82; 
when  may  not  separate  from 
general  organization,  705;  corpor- 
ate securities,  subject  to  taxation, 
794;  property,  exemption,  Xew 
Hampsliiie  rule,  79(3;  property 
u.sed  for  other  purposes,  when  not 
taxable,  799,  851;  trustees,  ap- 
pointment by  minister,  807;  early 
history,  when  to  be  examined  by 
coiu't,  831;  dis,solution,  eflfect  on 
legacy,  879;  when  may  invoke 
aid  of  court  to  comjiel  perform- 
ance of  promise  to  make  will,  891. 

Church  Edifice,  proper  place  of 
public  worship,  116;  defined,  119; 
not  subject  to  execution,  119; 
when  may  be  closed,  119;  meeting 
house,  le:ise  of,  436;  may  be 
removed  without  court  order,  535, 
538,  540;  when  meeting  house 
cannot  be  taken  in  execution,  641 ; 
used  for  other  purpose,  when  may 
not  be  ta.xed,  799,  851. 

Church  of  Christ,  formed  from 
division  of  Campbellites,  52;  deed 
for  benefit  of.  sustained,  94;  en- 
titled to  benefit  of  trust,  826. 

(^hurch  of  England,  trust  for  prop- 
agating doctrines  in  Scotland 
partly  invalid,  88;  clergATiien, 
regular  defined,  120;  clergA'men, 
neglect  of  dutv,  120;  communion, 
120;  established  church,  121;  evil 
liver,  122;  Maryland,  122;  min- 
ister cannot  refitse  to  btu-v  child 


XDEX 


inn 


of  a  dissenter,  122;  not  a  cor- 
poration, 122;  Quaker  not  bound 
to  accept  office  of  church  warden, 
123;  sacrament,  who  may  take, 
123;  King,  lioad  of,  222;  parish, 
433;  rule  as  to  pews,  4(51;  prayers 
for  the  dead  not  prohibited,  47(); 
institution  of  clergymen,  defined, 
563;  advowson,  note  on,  bequest 
invalid,  825. 

Church  of  (iod  at  Harrisburg,  his- 
tory and  form  of  government, 
124. 

Churcli  of  the  Lady  of  the  Lake, 
entitled  to  legacy,  880. 

(■liurch  Wardens,  Christian  Church, 
part  of  (ioj-poration,  95;  (Quaker 
not  bound  to  accept  office  of,  123, 
2()();  account,  spiritual  court  can- 
not settle,  120;  business  powers 
limited,  12(5;  ecclesiastical  powers, 
126;  moral  guardians,  120;  Eng- 
land, account  cannot  be  settled 
by  church  judicatory,  229;  elec- 
tion of,  rector  may  be  i-equired 
to  recognize,  240;  distribution  and 
control  of  pews,  447,  454,  460; 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  sta- 
tus, 571;  may  preserve  order  at 
religious  .service,  054;  Louisiana, 
ju-e  legal  owners  of  j)roperty, 
673. 

Churchyard,  burial  in,  59. 

(Jivil  Courts,  decline  to  exj)re.s,s 
opinion  on  difTerences  among 
Campbellites,  52;  secular  courts 
must  respect  regulat  ions  ;md  cus- 
toms of  chuicli,  113;  charitable 
\isv,  128:  church  aibitration  con- 
clusive, 128;  church  judicatories, 
limits  of  judicial  review,  133; 
civil  rights  only,  138;  church 
judicatories,  when  action  final, 
128;  con.solidation  of  churches, 
144;  constitution  of  church,  142; 
criH^d,  142;  criterion,  142;  Cum- 
berland I'resbyterian  Church,  14)}; 
diversion  of  chuicli  funds,  144; 
diversion  of  property,  144;  doc- 
trine, 145;  Dowie's  succe.s.sor,  148; 
eccle.sia.st ical  ((uestions,  148;  elec- 
tions, 149;  expulsion  of  members, 
150;  Friends,  form  of  gnvernment, 
151;  here.sy,  151;  judicial  notice, 
152;  jurisdiction,  true  ruk',  152; 
jurisdiction,    l.");5;    members,   sta- 


tus, 154;  minister,  155;  non- 
interference, 156;  officers,  powers, 
156;  property  rights,  three  classes, 
157;  property  rights,  157;  Prot- 
estant Ei)i.scopal  vestr>-,  158; 
Quakers,  who  are  ovenseers,  158; 
rehgious  questions,  158;  resulting 
trust,  beneficiaries,  162;  salary, 
payment  cannot  be  enforced,  102; 
schism,  162;  separation,  163; 
temporalities,  163;  trusts,  163; 
United  Brethren  in  Christ,  1(55; 
worship  and  doctrine,  106;  no 
control  over  election  of  deacons, 
19(5;  no  jurisdiction  over  (juestions 
of  doctrine,  215;  may  determine 
whether  church  tribunal  is  U-gally 
constituted,  229;  jurisdiction,  gen- 
eral rule,  285;  cannot  determine 
question  as  to  confession  of  sins, 
300;  cannot  determine  (juestion  of 
chiu-ch  membership,  319;  cannot 
determine  question  relative  to 
forms  of  worship,  302;  jurisdiction 
over  question  of  expulsion,  322; 
when  consolidation  of  churches 
binding  on,  339;  church  investi- 
gations not  binding  on,  341;  no 
jurisdiction  of  C|uestion  as  to 
jjropriet}-  of  excommunication  of 
priest,  387;  no  juri.-^dicfion  of 
question  of  removal  of  jMustor, 
398;  rule  as  to  rlisorganized  .so- 
cieties, effect  of  division,  527; 
cannot  determine  questions  of 
doctrine,  619;  no  juri.sdiction  to 
<letermine  propriety  of  priest's 
expulsion,  (579. 

Clarke  and  I'j.skine  College,  trust 
.s||iistained,  832. 

Clarkson's  Portraiture  nf  (Quaker- 
ism, quoted,  2(50. 

Classis,  German  Reformed  Church, 
273;  examination  of  candidates 
for  ministry,  380;  supervision  of 
ministers,  380;  Reformed  Dutch 
Church,  579,  583;  chussis  of  1822, 
580. 

Clergjnian.  See  Pjustor,  Priest,  Min- 
ister; Church  of  England,  120; 
who  niav  pro.secute  for  neglect  of 
duty,  120. 

Clock,  injuni'tion  restraining  strik- 
ing of,  40. 

(,'oal,  action  for  digging  and  re- 
moving. 17. 


!»1 


iM)i:\ 


Coke,  Sir  Edward,  doscribcH  phuc 

of  worship,  113. 
Colson,     Krcflcrick     D.,    Librarian 

New    ^'ork    State    Law   Library, 

ackiiowlcdKnioiits  to,  v. 
C-  o  1 II  in  I)  i  a  Conference,  appoints 

trustees     of     Corvallis     CoIlcKe, 

:m. 

Committee,  tenure,  431,  432;  gen- 
eral powers,  (i31;  aetion  against, 
731 ;  when  agents  of  subscribers, 
734. 

Conmion  Law,  applicable  1o  trusts 
in  Pennsylvania,  70;  aj)plicable  to 
charitable  uses  in  Penn.sylvani;i, 
71;  Vermont,  bequest  for  cliari- 
table  uses  invalid,  81 ;  Christianity 
in  New  York,  99;  Ohio,  status  of 
Christianity,  100;  Pennsylvania, 
Christianity  in,  100;  Christianity 
a  part  of,  113;  church  open  to  all 
parishioners,  116;  Church  of  Eng- 
land not  a  corporation  under,  122; 
disturbing  religious  meeting,  202; 
King  head  of  church,  222;  ecclesi- 
astical law  and  courts  part  of, 
222;  quorum  at  corporate  meet- 
ing, sic 

Communion,  Church  of  England, 
120. 

Community  Societie.s,  Amana  So- 
ciety, 167;  Harmon}'  Society, 
organization,  168;  Jehovah  Pres- 
bytery of  Zion,  Preparation, 
Iowa,  171;  Oneida  Communitv, 
171;  Order  of  St.  Benedict.  172; 
Separatists,  173;  Shakers,  175. 

Compromise,  members  may  settle 
suit,  3. 

Concordat,  defined,  677. 

Concord  Female  Charitable  Societj-, 
bequest  sustained,  832. 

Confession  of  Faith,  Cumberland 
Presbyterian  (Inirch,  alteration 
s  u  s  t  a  i  n  e  d,  143 ;  defined,  1 76 ; 
Westminster,  Cumberland  Pres- 
byterian Church  dissents  from, 
190. 

Congregation,  Baptist,  sole  legis- 
lative and  judicial  body  of  church, 
32;  Baptist,  control  of  property, 
37;  Campbellite,  powers  and  func- 
tions, 51;  relation  of  church  to, 
116;  public,  defined.  177;  defined, 
177;  government,  178;  Cumber- 
land Presbyterian  Church  reprc- 


Hcntation  in  seswion,  194;  tcm- 
|)oraI  affairs  not  subject  to  church 
judicatory,  229;  uhcn  vicar  may 
not  adjourn  mr-cting,  234;  cor- 
porate meeting,  when  not  affected 
by  society  meeting  at  same  time 
and  place,  239;  Creek  Church  no 
|)Ower  to  choo.s(?  priest,  279; 
right  to  control  religious  s<;rvicf» 
in  church,  287;  Lutheran,  powers 
and  functions,  301;  exclasive 
))ower  to  admit  or  exclude  mem- 
bers. 318;  call  of  minister,  373; 
Presbyterian  Church,  powers, 484; 
Presbyterian  Church,  calling  a 
minister,  499;  Protestant,  defined, 
545;  Reformed  Dutch  Church, 
right  to  withdraw,  .581 ;  relation 
to  corporation,  631;  division,  ef- 
fect, 632;  union  with  another 
denomination,  effect,  645;  asage 
as  to  rehgious  worship,  655;  when 
may  control  property  held  by 
bi.shop,  664,  665;  Roman  Cath- 
olic, relation  to  church,  669; 
authority  over  property,  822; 
trust  invalid  for  part  only  of 
members,  834. 

Congregational  Church,  minister, 
bequest  of  income  for,  72;  Dem- 
ocratical  in  character.  109;  def- 
inition, 179;  described,  180; 
organization,  general  principles, 
183;  advisorj-  councils.  183;  dea- 
cons, status,  183;  Home  Mis- 
sionary Society,  183;  minister, 
mode  of  settlement,  184;  minister, 
contract  of  settlement,  1S4,  376; 
mi.ssions,  185;  platform.  185; 
republican  government.  185;  Say- 
brook  platform,  185;  each  church 
independent,  180;  origin  of  asso- 
ciations, 180;  deacons  are  a 
corporation.  181;  method  of  se- 
lecting minister.  181,  398;  legnl 
cliaracter  of,  181;  local  society 
independent,  185;  minister,  when 
exempt  from  taxation.  400;  min- 
ister, new  town,  status,  438; 
societies,  how  composed,  632; 
majority  may  control,  696. 

Congregational  Home  JNIissionary 
Society,  entitled  to  receive  be- 
(juest  to  American  Home  Mis- 
sionary Society,  1S4. 

Congregationalists,  in  England  same 


ixi)i:x 


:ti:. 


as  Inclc|)('ii(lciil,s,  179;  separation 
from  Presbyterians  and  other 
sects,  179;  .Scriptures  only  stand- 
ard and  test  of  relif^ions  truth, 
179;  origin  from  Independents, 
282;  early  association  with  Pres- 
byterians, 483. 

Connecticut,  bequest  for  religious 
services  and  charitable  use,  77; 
religious  toleration,  647;  towns, 
support  of  public  worship,  800. 

Con.science,  rights  of,  constitutional 
establishment  in  Massachusetts, 
99;  government  no  control  of, 
100;  rights  of,  not  violated  by 
law  restricting  practice  of  med- 
icine, 103;  right  inalienable,  1S7; 
rule,  188;  cannot  be  coerced,  024; 
Sunday  observance,  frcM'dom  of, 
757. 

Consistory,  German  Reformed 
Church,  273;  power  of  exynilsion 
limited,  319;  Reformed  Dutch 
Church,  579,  581,  583. 

Consolidation,  churches,  when  mav 
be  set  aside,  293,  GOl;  three 
Methodist  P^piscopal  churches, 
sustained,  142,  339,  342;  Presby- 
terian Church,  when  invalid,  484; 
l)ower  limited,  GOO;  when  in- 
valid, 633;  when  societies  in 
different  denominations  may  not 
consolidate,  821. 

Constant ine,  Em{)eror,  law  relating 
to  church  jjropert}-,  GS2. 

Constitution,  M;i.s.sachuse(ts,  limita- 
tion on  action  for  ministers' 
salary,  10;  Baptist  Chiurh  has 
none,  33;  Michigan,  when  Bible 
readings  do  not  violate,  44; 
Pennsylvania,  reading  Bible  in 
schools  no  vif)Iation  of,  45;  Ohio, 
does  not  j)rcvent  or  re(iuire  read- 
ing religious  books  in  school^. 
45;  Wisconsin,  reading  Bible  in 
schools  a  violation  of.  45;  .Ma.s.'<:i- 
chusetts,  statute  prohibiting  bhf^- 
phemy  not  repugnant  to,  49; 
does  not  prevent  amending  char- 
ter and  altering  trust,  .SI;  har- 
mony with  Bible,  101;  .Mis.souri, 
refusing  charter  of  Christian 
Science  Society,  104;  national  and 
State  binding  on  duirch,  IIG; 
acquiescence  of  church  for  fift\- 
years  conclusive  on  courts.    142; 


of  churcli  recognized  by  civil 
couits,  142;  right  of  cons<-ieiice 
inalienable,  187;  church,  liefined, 
effect,  189;  statutes  iigainst  dis- 
turbing meetings  sustaine<i,  214; 
Friends,  no  provision  for  decision 
on  basis  of  ninnbers,  2G1 ;  adoi)ted 
by  Methodist  l-^|)i.sct)pal  Church, 
334;  Norwegian  lA'angelical  Lu- 
theran Church,  42();  Presbyterian 
Church,  atlopted,  481;  Presby- 
terian ("hurcli,  general  a.ssembly 
subject  to  limitations,  491;  Wis- 
consin, will  reciuiring  legate*'  to 
attend  church,  sustained,  G19; 
religious  society,  limited  charac- 
ter, (134;  Missoiui,  Westminster 
College  act  did  not  violate.  511; 
Reformed  Dutch  Church,  .")79, 
585;  United  States  relation  to 
religious  quest  ioas.  .592,  G25; 
Ohio,  insures  religioiLs  freedom, 
595;  constitution  and  by  laws 
make  contract,  GOl;  Pennsyl- 
vania, religious  freedom,  G23; 
Iowa,  u.se  of  Biljle  in  .sciiooLs, 
713;  Kan.s;is,  wlien  religious  e.xer- 
ci.ses  in  school  do  not  constitute 
religious  worshij),  713;  Nevada, 
sectarian  defined,  714;  Nebnuska, 
what  constitutes  religious 
worshi|),  714;  Ohio,  note  on 
religious  instruction  in  schools, 
714;  Kentucky,  when  pniyer 
not  sectarian  instruction,  715; 
South  Dakota,  secfarian  aid  pro- 
hibited, 7ir>;  Texits,  sectarian  aid 
prohibited,  717;  Wisconsin,  .sec- 
tarian instruction  prohibit*^!,  718; 
Ma.ssachus<>(ls,  Shakers,  religious 
freedom,  722;  wh(>n  restrictions 
on  Sunday  barix-ring,  unconstitu- 
tional, 747;  South  (".•uoiina,  mu- 
nicipal ordinances  i-egulating 
.'^abballi  observance,  v.-did.  7('»S; 
.Maryland,  Kentucky  and  Texas, 
Sunday  ob.servance  statute,  sus- 
I. lined,  782;  California,  Sunday 
laws  imconstitution;d.  78;{:  ( leor- 
gia,  exemption  of  churcli  |)ro|)erty 
from  tax.it ion,  v;ilid,  791;  llhnois, 
taxation  for  loc.il  imi)rovenu'iits, 
exemption  unconstitutional,  7'.M; 
New  IIam|)shire,  exemption  of 
chinch  jiroperly,  79t);  Kentucky, 
when     pai*son;ige     exemj)!     from 


!)l(i 


i.\i)i:x 


(■•ixiition,  79(i;  Illinois,  when  p;ir- 
soiian''  not  cxfiiii)!  from  taxation, 
7'.)7;  I'liitcd  lirctlircn  in  Christ, 
So?;  limitation  of  doviso  for 
religious  purposes,  877;  United 
States  privileges  and  immunities 
of  citizens,  foreign  henefieiarios 
under  will,  S79. 

Contract,  minister,  laws  of  denom- 
ination presumed  to  be  included, 
.■}74;  limitations  on  religious  cor- 
porations, 002;  note  on,  634; 
lial)ility  of  bishop  on,  (ifil ;  con- 
ditional, 732;  United  Brethren  in 
Christ,  relation  of  members  to 
association,  Sdl. 

Contribution.  ;us  basis  of  right  to 
vote,  868,  87 L 

Convention,  Bafjtist,  powers  anfl 
functions,  33. 

Corporation,  may  sue  members,  4; 
may  sue  trustees,  4;  may  recover 
damages  against  railroad  com- 
pany for  disturl)ing  religious 
services,  4;  church,  distinct  from 
society,  107,  112;  Church  of 
England  not  a,  122;  who  are 
members  of,  154;  Congregational 
Church,  deacons  constitute,  181; 
relation  to  society,  cannot  ex]iel 
member,  321;  corporators  cannot 
regulate  services,  342;  foreign, 
not  subject  to  New  York  law  as 
to  sal(>  of  property,  540;  no  power 
to  expel  member  of  society,  609, 
610;  reorganization,  efTect,  610; 
relati(m  to  church,  610;  as  trus- 
tee, when  may  execute  trust, 
614;  who  constitute,  615;  relation 
to  congregation,  631;  dissolution, 
notes  on,  636;  organization,  sub- 
stantial compliance  with  law,  637: 
changing  name,  640;  reincorpora- 
tion, identity,  641;  validity  of 
organization  may  be  questioned 
in  action  on  subscription,  733; 
may  receive  property  in  trust, 
828;  limitation  of  property,  how- 
question  determined,  906. 

Corvallis  College,  Oregon,  note  on, 
364. 

Council,  Baptist,  described,  33;  in 
early  chm-ch,  settled  doctrinal 
controversies,  111;  advisory.  Con- 
gregational Church,  183. 

Courts,  ancient  Hebrew  Coiuts  sat 


on  the  Sabbath,  758;  charging 
jury  on  Simday  unlawful,  758; 
early  Christian  (;ustom  as  to 
courts  on  the  Sal)bath,  759;  New 
\'(irk  City  rruigistrates  may  sit 
on  Siinday,  759. 

Cowflerv,  Oliver,  minor  chilflren 
receive  title  to  land  in  Inde- 
pendence, Mis.souri,  410. 

( Vanmer,  Thomtv-s,  Archbishop,  re- 
lation to  Protestant  reformation, 
545. 

Crawford,  Rev.,  mini.ster  Reformed 
Pre.sbvterian  Church,  587. 

Creed.  '  Baptist,  described,  32; 
Campbellites,  Bible  only,  51; 
relation  to  church,  110;  Bible 
only.  Church  of  CJod  at  Harris- 
burg,  124;  civil  courts  will  not 
.settle  diiTerences,  142;  Friends, 
defined,  261;  Mormon,  407 

('rofts,  George  D.,  Librarian  BufTalo 
Law  Library,  acknowledgments 
to,  vi. 

(\iba,  Spanish  appropriations  for 
support  of  church  in,  685. 

Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church, 
altering  confession  of  faith,  su.s- 
tained,  union  with  Presbyterian 
Church,  143;  hi.story,  190;  courts, 
191;  general  a.s.sembly,  192;  gen- 
eral assembly,  powers,  192;  name, 
doctrines,  etc..  how  changed,  193; 
Presbytery,  193;  session,  194; 
synod,  194;  unincorporated  so- 
ciety, liability,  194;  union  with 
Presbyterian  Church,  194;  dis.sent 
from  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,  190;  points  of  difTerence, 
190;  general  as.semblv  formed. 
191;  membership,  1906,  191; 
union  with  regular  Pre.<byterian 
Church,  191.  194:  courts,  notes 
on  juj-i.sdiction,  192;  doctrine, 
how  changed,  193:  Pre.sbyter>-, 
how  constituted,  193;  sv-nod,  how 
constituted,  194. 

Curate,  Ix'gislature  cannot  deter- 
mine what  constitutes,  126;  sta- 
tus. 550. 

Cuthbert,  Katherine  L.,  Assistant 
Librarian  BufTalo  Law  Libnu-y. 
acknowledgments  to,  vi. 

Cv  Pres,  applving  rule  of  to  char- 
"itable  beque.xts.  76,  86,  88; 
altering  teiras  of  trust,  83. 


INDEX 


!»1 


D 

Dalles,  IMctliodisl  inissioii  al,  '•'>')l. 

Dama}j;cs,  may  Ix'  recovered  a^^ainst 
railroad  company  for  disturbing 
I'eligions  ser\  ices,  \)\i\  not  for 
depreciation  in  value  of  chun-li 
property,  4;  individual  member 
may  not  reco\('r  damages  for 
disturbinf^  him  wliiie  attondinff 
religious  service,  4,  202;  rector, 
deposition,  no  action  for,  15; 
when  society  not  lialile  for  injury 
received  by  emplijyee,  tiOT;  mem- 
ber expelled,  no  claim  against, 
corporation,  GOO;  when  bishop 
not  lia))h'  for,  GtiG. 

Davies,  Ilemy  E.  Judge,  John 
Street  Church  case,  34G. 

Deacons,  Baptist  Church,  196; 
ecclesiastical  officer,  19G;  courts 
no  control  over  election  of,  19G; 
when  not  liable  on  l)uii(ling  con- 
tract, 3;  Shakers,  may  maintain 
action  for  trespass,  IG;  officers  in 
Baptist  Church,  3G;  Christian 
Church,  part  of  corporation,  95; 
Christian  Church,  jjowers  and 
functions  of,  93;  when  tliey  con- 
stitute the  corj)oration,  111; 
Church  of  Cod  at  Ilari-isburg, 
124;  when  validity  of  election 
not  subject  to  inquii-y  by  civil 
courts,  14  9;  ('ongivgational 
Church,  constitute  (!orporat  ion, 
ISl,  but  see  page  1<S3;  jjromissory 
note,  when  void,  1<S3;  Methodist 
Episcopal  Chiuch,  status,  391; 
included  in  term  minister  imder 
tax  law,  3(K);  Shakers,  not  to  ho 
sued  for  communitj'  properiy, 
719;  Shakers,  action  by,  721; 
Shakers,  election  and  duties,  725. 

Debts,  when  (;hurch  property  liable 
for,  5;  when  members  individually 
liable  for,  S;  when  judgment 
against  trustees  for  not  a  lien 
on  projx'rty,  17;  wIkti  members 
not  liable  for,  G03;  reimburse- 
ment, ()()4;  dissenters  liable  be- 
fore withdrawal,  ()34;  when  mem- 
bers individually  lial)le  for,  G4I. 

Decatur,  Ilfinois,  report  of  union 
of  Presbjierian  churches  adopte<l 
at,  191. 

Declaration   and   Teslimonv,    Pres- 


byterian Church,  g<'neral  :i.s.sem- 
bly  noted,  131;  Presbyterian 
Church,  character  and  efTe«'t, 
486. 

Dedication,  see  properly,  523;  for 
hou.se  of  worship,  sustainefl,  829. 

Deed,  conveyance  to  truste<>s  is 
conveyance  to  society,  5;  a<'tion 
to  reform,  15;  of  burial  lot,  VfTect, 
63;  of  vault  or  burial  lot,  title 
of  purchaser,  65;  when  presumed, 
634. 

Denomination,  defined,  197;  con- 
tract with  minister,  rules  pre- 
sumed, to  be  included  in,  374; 
iLse  of  i)roperty,  524,  .527;  when 
chuirhes  in  different  denomina- 
tions may  not  consolidate,  584, 
600;  character  of  corporation, 
604;  society  may  change  relations, 
630;  based  on  religioa^j  Ix-lief,  t)35; 
union  with  another,  elTert,  (>45. 
()9li;  changing  relation.-^,  elTecl, 
()9G;  limitation  ami  use  of  prop- 
erty in  trust,  829,  8:50;  when  may^ 
prescribe  qualifications  of  votei-s,' 
870. 

Des  Moines  .\mm:d  Conference 
Evangelical  As.sociation,  action 
concerning  iiish<jps,  243. 

Dickson  County,  'lenncsseo,  Cum- 
berland Presbyterian  Church  or- 
ganized in,  190. 

Diocese,  Protestant  I'^piscopal 
Chm'ch  ilescril)etl,  550,  ,552. 

Di-scijiles  of  Christ,  government. 
198;  meeting,  powiTs  of  minoritv, 
198.  ^ 

Discipline,  Evangelical  .Association, 
242,  244;  (krman  Itefornuxl 
Chureii,  274;  Methodist  Cimrcli 
of  Canada,  331;  Methodist  I'.pis- 
copal  Ch<n-ch,  334;  Metho(|ist 
Episcopal  C'hurcii,  consolida'ion 
of  societies,  bishoi)'s  power,  3;!'.l; 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
property  to  be  li<l<l  in  tru>i, 
355;  .Mctl\<)ilist  l]i>isci>i>al  ( 'hurcii, 
Soutli,  3G1;  Methodist  Epi.sco|)al 
Church,  Soutli,  pui)lishing  house, 
:W.);  Methodist  Protest  .nut 
Cliunh,  trustei's  of  local  .socii-ty. 
.371;  .Methodist  I'lijiscopjil-Church 
subon filiate  to  St  .ate  Ljiw,  605; 
binding  on  society,  636;  United 
Hntliren  in  ("lirisi,  when  formu- 


!)1S 


iNi)i:x 


l;ilc(i,  H')7;  \\c.n1<V:im  Mel  IkmIJ.-,!  , 
,S74. 

Dissciilcrs,  Lady  Hewley's  charity 
for,  Sa;  l)('(]U('st  for,  80;  Church 
of  Miinhmii  c'liiMot  rcfu.so  to  burv, 
12'J;  Kiik1:iiu1,  V.M. 

Disturbing  Hclijiious  Meeting,  ;uk- 
souihly,  wliat  constitutes,  2(M); 
camp  pround,  trafhc,  201;  Clu-ist- 
miis  festival,  201;  Christmas  troe 
celebration,  201 ;  church  trial,  201 ; 
common  law,  202;  con(hict,  202; 
(lamafies,  not  recoverable,  202; 
decorum  required,  202;  defined, 
202;  described,  203;  dispersion  of 
conp;n>p;ation,  203;  evidence,  205; 
extent,  208;  extent,  one  person, 
208;  father  removing  child,  208; 
fightinji,  209;  grantor  preventing 
occupancy  of  proi)erty,  209;  in- 
tention, 209;  interrui)ti()n  by  ex- 
IM'Ued  member,  209;  intoxicating 
hquor,  209;  intoxication,  210; 
meeting  ])n!vented,  211;  motive, 
211 ;  patrolman's  imreasonable  in- 
terference, 211;  preaching  by 
rival,  211;  protest  against  min- 
ister, 211;  removal  of  disturber, 
212,  654;  riot,  213;  Salvation 
Army,  213;  scope  of  statute,  213; 
singing,  213;  singing  by  choir. 
214;  statutes  constitutional,  214; 
summary  conviction,  214;  Sunday 
school,  214;  individual  member 
of  congregation  cannot  recover 
damages  for,  429;  disturber  may 
be  removed,  569;  what  constitutes 
meeting  for  religious  service,  652; 
preserving  ordiM-  at,  653. 

Doctrine,  civil  courts  no  juri.sdic- 
tion,  147,  215;  how  ascertained, 
215;  predestination,  215;  occasion 
of  religious  controversies.  111; 
cluu-ch  speaks  for  itself,  145;  new. 
effect  of,  147;  judgment  of  church 
judicature  conclusive,  148;  when 
may  not  be  altered,  159;  courts 
will  not  inquire  into  questions 
relating  to,  166;  Cumberland 
P  r  e  s  b  y  t  e  r  i  an  Cliui-ch,  how 
changed,  193;  jurisdiction  of 
church  over.  223;  Arminius  noted, 
250;  when  church  may  not 
change,  253:  when  jiew  owners 
cannot  decide  what  shall  b(^ 
preached,    452;    abandoning,    ef- 


fect on  |>roperiy,  .521,  523,  521, 
526;  deviation  in,  efTe<;t,  on  trast, 
586;  civil  courls  no  juri.sdiction 
over,  619,  <i27;  changr-  of,  efTcct 
on  ijroperl>'  riglits,  <)30;  when 
change  do<'s  not  affect  slat  as  of 
society,  636;  .s<jciety  may  control, 
637;  change  of,  may  forfeit  legacy, 
885;  when  testator'.s  religi(;us 
f)pinions  may  be  considered  in 
construing  will,  888. 

Domestic  and  I'fjreign  Mission- 
aiy  Society,  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  note  on,  550,  553. 

Donor's  Opinions,  when  considered 
in  construing  will,  72,  77. 

Dordrecht,  Synf)d  of,  note  on,  580. 

Dowieism,  leadershij),  question  of 
succes.sion,  216;  religioiLs  belief 
a.s  excuse  for  parental  neglect, 
216. 

Dowie,  .John  Alexander,  successor, 
civil  courts  decline  to  detennine, 
148;  founder  of  sect,  216. 

Drew  Theological  Seminary,  be- 
quest sustained,  69,  344;  e<luca- 
tion  of  ministers,  380. 

Drum,  beating  of  in  streets,  when 
may  be  prohibited,  621,  691; 
beating  not  an  act  of  worship, 
691. 

Dubs,  Rudolph,  Bishop,  Evangel- 
ical A,s.sociation,  susj^ended  and 
reelected,  243. 

Dunkers,  deed,  license,  trust,  217; 
.separation,  effect,  697. 

Dunkirk.  N.  Y..  Presbyterian 
Chiuch  at,  note  on,  377. 

Dutch  Reformed  Church  of  Hol- 
land, deacons,  election,  when 
court  will  not  inquire  into,  149. 

E 

Ea^sement,  for  camp  meeting,  when 
perj)etual,  54;  church  yard  used 
for  burial,  59. 

East  Pennsylvania  Annual  Confer- 
ence, Evangelical  Association, 
designates  Philadelphia  as  meet- 
ing place  of  General  Conference. 
246. 

Ecclesiastical  Council,  defined.  219: 
described,  219;  minister,  change 
of  religious  tenets.  219;  when 
called  H)  consider  change  of  miu- 


i.\i)i:x 


u\u 


istcr's  belief,  .'571;  pinel  ice  rel- 
ative to  call  of,  ;57!>;  when  no 
jurisdiction  to  exconinmnieate 
minister,  387. 

Ecclesi;i.stical  Oourts,  arhitrar\'  pro- 
ceedings, 221;  denominational 
rules,  222;  ecclesiasiicul  question, 
defined,  222;  lui^land,  222;  Eng- 
land, jurisdicf ion,  22.'5;  Friends, 
223;  judges,  should  be  imi)artial, 
223;  judgment,  ett'eet,  224;  judg- 
ment, how  enforced,  22();  judg- 
ment, when  binding  on  civil 
courts,  227;  judgment,  when  con- 
clu-sive,  227;  jin-isdiction,  general 
rule,  227;  jurisdiction,  when  ex- 
clusive, 227;  Legislature,  jiu-is- 
diction,  228;  mandamus,  228; 
members,  trial,  228;  object  and 
piu-pose,  229;  pew  holder's  right, 
229;  power  limited,  229;  jjower, 
necessity  of  lunitation,  229;  Scot- 
land, 230;  secret  investigations, 
230;  state  not  bound  bv  decision, 
230;  Vermont,  231. 

Ec(!lesiastical  Law,  oiigin,  232;  sub- 
ordinate to  civil  law,  '2'A2;  i)art 
of  common  law,  222;  decisions  of 
ecclesiastical  courts,  230;  English, 
basis  of  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  system,  .'i.'iL 

Eddy,  Marj'  Baker  G.,  author  of 
Science  and  Health,  10.5. 

Education,  d<>fined,  44;  bequest  for, 
70,  71;  religious  reading,  bequest 
for,  77;  charity  for,  valid,  84;  of 
young  men  for  ministry,  8.5;  poor 
children,  trust  for,  too  indefinite, 
87;  for  instruction  of  Baptist 
young  men,  void,  90;  minister, 
defined,  .380. 

Ejectment,  action  against  minister 
occupying  parsonag<>,  .5;  right  of 
action,  .5;  trustees  of  unincor- 
porated society  cannot  main- 
tain, t). 

Elders,  Christian  Church,  i)owers 
and  functions  of,  94;  Church  of 
(!od  at  Harrisbmg,  124. 

Eldershi]),  Church  of  God  at 
Ilarrisburg,  general  and  local. 
l)owers  and  functions,  124. 

J'^ldcjn,  Lord,  ruling  as  to  dissenters, 
noted,  19!). 

Election,  Doctrine  of,  schism  caused 
by  discussion,  428. 


]\Ieclions,  adjourmiienl,  2.33;  bur- 
den of  proof,  2.34;  by  laws,  234; 
certificate  cannot  be  modified, 
2.34;  hand  vote,  23.5;  illegal  votes, 
23.5;  mandamus,  requiring  notice, 
23.5;  meeting,  justice  may  call. 
23.5;  method,  congi-egation  may 
regulate,  23.5;  nominations,  23t); 
notice,  23(1;  place,  2.3(1;  i)residing 
ollicers,  23(t;  referee,  237;  regular- 
ity, qualificali(jns  of  voters,  237; 
rescinding  vote,  238;  silence,  ef- 
fect, 2.38,  310;  validity,  notice. 
239;  validity,  other  meeting  at 
same  time,  239;  voter,  right  can- 
not be  reconsidered,  240;  when 
reception  of  illegal  votes  does 
not  vitiate  election,  238;  special, 
when  may  be  ordered,  (>,  237,  311; 
comt  may  supervise,  and  order 
special  election,  (5;  when  civil 
courts  will  in(|uire  into,  149; 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  rec- 
tor's authority,  .5.51. 

Elizabeth,  Queen,  England,  estab- 
lished church  in  reign  of,  592. 

Elizabeth,  Statute  of,  scope  and 
application,  ()9;  not  in  force  in 
Penn.-;ylvania,  70;  (Jeorgia,  trusts 
enforced  without  •statute,  73;  in 
force  in  Illinois.  74;  when  be- 
(juest  cannot  be  sustained  with- 
out, 75;  in  force  in  Maine,  7(1; 
not  in  force  in  New  York,  77; 
not  adojjted  in  South  Carolina, 
81. 

Emerson,  Ralph  Waldo,  writings  of 
used  as  text  of  sermon  by  Fran- 
cis E.  .\bbott,  8.50. 

Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowl- 
edge, quoted,  97. 

England,  ecclesia.stieal  law  and 
court,  defineil,  222;  jurisdiction 
of  ecdesiiistical  courts.  223;  re- 
ligious toleration  act,  .592. 

England,  .John,  Bishop,  bequest  in 
trust  for  I'rsuline  Community, 
sustained.  893. 

Established  Church.  Church  of 
England.  121;  in  M:u-vland,  122; 
Legislature  caiuiot  take  any  ac- 
tion to  form  one,  12t>. 

l]vangelical  .Vssociatioii,  minister's 
right  to  compensatiiin  a  property 
right,  11;  Zion  Church,  liav  City, 
Nlichigan,   note  on,   ;{82;  liistory 


i>L'M 


i.\ih;\ 


;itiil  I'diiii  oI'  jioviTiniiciit,  I'll; 
i)iM;iiiiiz;iti()ii,  '24:{;  (l('.scri|)ii()M. 
'244;  division  of  property,  cITcct, 
24");  expulsion  of  nif-TnlxT  Icnni- 
natos  oflicc,  24.'j;  (icncnil  Con- 
f<M-(>nco,  place  of  in<'i'tinn,  24(>; 
niinisler,  power  of  appointment, 
247;  secession,  when  seceders  <!an- 
not  control  i)roperty,  247;  bishops 
^  deposed,  242. 

Evangelical  Association  of  North 
America,  General  (Conference  of 
1S91,  api)ointnient  a  church  ques- 
ti(jn  only,  loo;  note  on,  243. 

Evanfielical  Ba|)tist  Benevolent  and 
Missionary  Society,  bequest  sus- 
tained, ','A\. 

Evangelical  Lutheran,  historical 
sketch,  240;  division  of  society, 
effect  on  projjcrty  rights,  240. 

Evangelical  Lutherans,  pastor  must 
be  member  of  svnod,  0;  historv 
noted,  297. 

Evangelical  Lutheran  Seminary,  l)e- 
quest  to,  80. 

Evidence^  election  of  trustees,  bur- 
den of  i)roof,  234. 

Ewing,  Finis,  one  of  the  founders 
of  (Ui  m  b  e  r  1  a  n  d  Presbyterian 
Church,  190. 

Excursion,  church  may  not  mak(> 
contract  for,  002. 

Execution,  when  church  may  not 
be  taken  on,  119. 

Expulsion,  of  member,  when  court 
will  not  consider  regularity  of, 
34,  150;  of  minority  by  majority 
siLstained,  148,  ir)4;  court  will 
not  determine  who  ought  to  be 
members,  1.5t);  when  void,  151; 
Shakers,  no  action  for  damages 
by  expelled  member,  721. 

F 

Fenwick,  .John,  Bishop,  method  of 

taking  oath  :us  witness,  904. 
Ferdinand,   King  Of  Spain,  head  of 

Catholic     Church     in     .\merican 

]H)ssessions,  687. 
Fink's  .Vsylum,  note  on,  54t). 
Fixture,  church  bell  a,  39. 
Forcible  I'hitry  and  Detainer,  action 

for,  6;   action  must   be  in   name 

of  corporation,  H,  812. 
Foreign    Corporation,     when     ma>- 


take  under  West  N'irginia  will, 
S(). 

Im)X,  Cieorge,  followers  called  Quak- 
ers, 202. 

I'ranconia  (Jonference,  Mennonites, 
note  on,  320. 

J'ree  Baptist  Church,  creed,  250; 
property,  when  transfer  to  regular 
Baptist  church  invalid,  2.50. 

Free  Church  of  Scotland,  organiza- 
tion noted,  199;  organization,  2.52; 
diversion  of  f)roi)erty,  252;  minor- 
ity's right,  2.53;  union  did  not 
affect  freedom  of  piivate  opinion, 
254;  see  note  on  Fre<;  Portuguese 
Church,  487. 

Freedmen,  defined,  87;  bequest  for, 
too  indefinite,  87. 

Freemason,  when  not  entitled  to 
burial  in  Roman  Catholic  cem- 
etery, f)4,  308,  607. 

Free  Portuguese  Church,  note  on, 
487. 

Friends,  organization  and  method^ 
of  business  considered  by  court, 
152;  history,  2.55;  three  groups, 
256;  described,  257;  business,  how- 
transacted.  200;  cre<'d,  261;  Ohio 
Quarterly  Meeting,  201;  Philadel- 
phia Nearly  Meeting,  202;  Pre- 
parative meeting,  only  one  regu- 
lar, 204;  affirmation.  205;  division 
of  st)ciety,  effect,  presiding  officer, 
265;  exempted  from  military 
duty,  200;  meetings,  200;  office, 
when  not  bound  to  accept,  200; 
title,  not  forfeited  by  removal  of 
building,  207;  unincorporated, 
clerk,  status  and  powers.  2()5; 
declaration  of  religious  toleration, 
050;  when  legacy  to  Vearlj-  Meet- 
ing invalid,  880. 

Friendship  Liberal  League,  descrip- 
tion, 2()S. 

Fugitive  Slaves,  trust  providing  for 
care  of,  84. 

G 

General  .\ssembly.  Associate  Re- 
formed Church.  25;  Presbyterian 
Church,  organic  law.  115;  Presby- 
terian Church  political  deliver- 
ances, 131,  499;  Presbyterian 
Church,  action  relative  to  union 
with  Cumberland  Church,  su.<- 
tained,  143;  Cumberland  Presby- 


INDKX 


!»L'l 


terian  Church,  formed,  191 ; 
powers,  192;  Scotch  Church, 
powers  considered,  230;  Free 
Church  of  Scothmd,  2o2;  Presby- 
terian Church,  board  of  erection 
fund,  41();  Presbyterian  Church 
described,  482,  4S9;  Presbyterian 
Church,  action  on  Dechiration 
and  'i'estiniony,  480;  Prosit  jterian 
Church,  division  at  outbreak  of 
Civil  War,  489;  Presbyterian 
Church,  declarations  concerning 
slav<*ry,  510. 

General  Conference,  Methodist 
Church  of  Canada,  331;  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  oi-i}!;inal, 
334;  1844,  power  to  divide  church, 
343,  345;  Methodist  I':i)iscopal 
Church,  South,  361;  Methodist 
Protestant  Church,  authority  over 
extinct  churches,  370;  ^\'esle3•an 
Methodist,  875;  Evangelical  Asso- 
ciation, 241,  246;  United  Bretluen 
in  Christ,  855,  857. 

General  Council,  Lutheran,  note  on, 
289. 

General  Convention,  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  membership, 
552;  Universalist  Church,  New 
York  corporation,  865. 

General  Synod,  Cierman  Reformed 
Church,  273. 

George  I,  ICngland,  established 
church  in  reign  of,  592. 

Georgia,  trusts  enforced  without 
statute  of  I'ilizabeth,  73;  powers 
of  trustees,  817. 

Georgia  Conference,  M  e  t  h  o  d  i  s  t 
Episcoi)al  Churcii,  South,  rela- 
tion to  Andnnv  chapel,  367. 

(Jerman  Bai)tists.     See  Dunkcrs. 

German  Evangelical  L  u  t  li  e  r  a  n 
Cluirch,  diversion  of  i)ropertv, 
269. 

German EvangehcaLs,  history  noted, 
297. 

German  Evangelical  Synod  of 
North  America,  property,  sep- 
aration, injunction,  271. 

German  Reformed  Ciiurch.  descrip- 
tion, 273;  dis.s( living  relatiim  to 
classis,  eifect,  273;  joint  title, 
division,  effect,  274;  judicatories, 
274. 

German  Society,  Washington,  1). 
C.,  270. 


Girard  College  case,  notes  on,  59;?. 

Girard,  Stephen,  will  establishing 
college,  593. 

Glebe  Land,  note  on,  551. 

Godly  Widows,  dehned,  85. 

Gordon,  Patrick,  Governor  of  Penn- 
sylvania, informs  council  of  erec- 
tion of  Roman  Catholic  Church 
in  Pliiladelphia,  076. 

Gospel,  defined,  277. 

Greek  Church,  comparison  with 
other  Catholic  churches,  278; 
diversion  of  property,  278;  priest, 
appointment  and  removal,  279. 

Griffin,  Marguerite  E.,  author's 
reader  and  stenographer,  acknowl- 
edgments to,  V. 

Ciri.swold  College,  note  on,  552. 

Guardian,  removal  on  change  of 
religious  faith,  2S0;  ward's  reli- 
gious education,  281,  590;  holds 
office  of  trust,  (•)23. 

Guild,  building  subject  to  control 
of  vestrj-,  553. 

H 

Hardwicke,  Lord  Chancellor,  de- 
cision on  Quaker's  right  of 
affirmation,  205. 

Harmony  Society,  organization  and 
l)lun  of  govermnenl,  108,  109,  170. 

Ilanisl)urg,  Church  of  God  at,  note 
on,  124. 

Ileiilelberg  CatechLsni,  noted,  273; 
described,  546. 

Ileiilelberg  Confession  (See  Heidel- 
berg Catechism),  note  on,  575. 

Henry  II,  England,  confirms  early 
canons  prohibiting  judicial  pro- 
ceedings on  the  Sabbat li,  7.59. 

Heresy,  l;nv  knows  no.  151,  (HS 
047;  minister  adopting,  forfeits 
rights,  3S.S. 

H(>wlev,  Ladv,  charitv  for  di.-v-cnt- 
ers,  k"). 

Hicks,  Klias,  Iriends,  prominent 
part  in  dividing  .•society,  2.56. 

High  on  Injunctions,  cited,  ecclesi- 
astical (|i;estion,  285. 

liilUl)orougli  Seliool,  trust  for,  void 
for  uncertainly,  87. 

liiimian,  .\Ian.son.  at  Oregon  mis- 
sion, 3.54. 

History  of  Latin  Chri.Ktianity,  Mil- 
man,  (juoted,  6S2. 


922 


INDKX 


Hoffman's  Ecclesiafltical  Law,  cited, 

322. 
Iloypitiility,  not,  a  charitable  use,  73. 
lioylo   Meeting,   FriendH,   note  on, 

262. 
Hus,   Jolin,  relation   to   Protestant 

reformation,  545. 


Iceland,  Luthcriiiis,  doctrines  and 
cu-stoniis  derived  from,  302. 

Iliad,  use  in  schools,  45. 

Illinois,  trustees  must  sue  or  de- 
fend for  society,  IS;  statute  of 
Ehzabeth  in  force  in,  74;  bequest 
for  charitable  use  valid.  Si;  rule 
as  to  property  held  by  local 
society,  529;  status  of  orpanizerl 
religious  societies,  G;i7;  rule  as 
to  actions  by  corporation,  S()(). 

Illinois  Industrial  School  for  (lirls, 
status,  710. 

lUinois  Orphans'  Hom(>,  note  on, 
491. 

IlUnois,  Preachers'  Aid  Society,  be- 
quest for,  345. 

Incorporated  Society,  beciur'st  for 
charitable  uses,  74. 

Independents,  in  Englanrl  same  as 
Congregationalists,  179;  defini- 
tion, 282. 

Indianapolis,  Indiana,  Evangelical 
Association,  (leneral  Conference, 
meeting,  1S91,  242,  240. 

Indians,  bequest  for  benefit  of 
sustained,  71;  missions,  bequest 
for,  74;  missions  among,  351;  re- 
lation to  California  missions,  600. 

Injunction,  when  eaimot  be  granted 
in  action  to  nvstrain  use  of  in- 
strumental music,  18;  pastor 
excluded  from  office,  restrained 
from  fiu'ther  oflicial  acts,  32; 
restraining  ringing  of  church 
bells,  39,  40;  restraining  striking 
of  clock,  40;  not  proper  remedy 
to  determine  title  to  property, 
56;  restraining  expulsion  of  m(>ni- 
ber  of  Christian  Sci(Micc  Society, 
103;  pastor  deposed,  restrained 
from  occupying  church  property. 
155;  trial  of  member,  restraining 
tribunal  not  legally  constituted. 
229;  granted  to  restrain  transfer 
of  property  from  Free  Baptist  to 


Regular  Baptifit  Church,  250;  re- 
straining transfer  of  jjrojK'rty  of 
Free  Church  of  Scotland,  253; 
restraining  majority  from  divert- 
ing pro[ierly,  272;  granted  to 
prevent  transfer  of  |)?o|)erty  tr> 
Orthodox  Creek  Catholic  Hu.ssi.an 
Church,  278;  Alaska,  Lutheran 
property,  granted  restraining 
erection  of  building  by  unauthor- 
ized claimants,  299;  baptism,  u.se 
of  stream  f(jr,  283;  cemetery, 
obstructing  acce.«s  to  lot,  283; 
cemetery,  removal  of  l)odies,  284; 
diversion  of  property,  284;  ecclesi- 
astical bodies,  285;  expulsion  of 
members,  285;  lease,  286;  mem- 
bers, interfering  with  trustee.'*, 
286;  minister,  dis.solving  relations, 
287;  members,  interfering  with 
property,  286;  minister's  f)ccu- 
pancy  of  church,  287;  minister, 
restraining  call,  290;  pews,  re- 
arranging, 290;  priest,  restraining 
exercise  of  functions,  291;  re- 
moval of  building,  291;  restrain- 
ing increase  of  salary,  291;  sale 
of  property,  291 ;  use  of  building, 
292;  denied  in  action  relating  to 
confession  of  .sins,  300;  denied 
restraining  trustees  from  regulat- 
ing services  in  Luthc  ran  churches, 
302;  denied  to  reinstate  pastor 
excluded  by  majority,  303;  not 
gianted  to  restrain  church  from 
employing  another  pastor,  382; 
granted  to  restrain  trustees  from 
jM-eventing  use  of  chui-ch  by  pas- 
tor, 383;  gi-anted  to  minority  to 
restrain  improper  use  of  church 
by  majority,  387;  denied  restrain- 
ing change  of  pews,  447;  denied 
restraining  repairs  to  building, 
462;  gi-anted  restraining  collec- 
tion of  debt  against  pastor,  5(X); 
lestraining  exclusive  use  of  church 
edifice  b}'  society  primarily  en- 
titled thereto,  531;  restraining 
minority  from  occupying  projv 
erty,  532;  denied  restraining 
transfer  of  projierty,  558:  denied 
restraining  vestry  from  removing 
rector,  5(>4;  gianted  restraining 
minister  who  has  deviated  in 
doctrine  from  occupying  pulpit, 
584;  bi.shoi)  restrained  from  pro- 


INDEX 


!»ii:; 


(•(•(•diii;j;  uKaiiisf  :i  priest  pending 
an  appeal,  (iOO;  grantod  restrain- 
ing burial  of  suicide  in  Catholic 
cemetery,  668;  granted  restrain- 
ing the  closing  of  a  church,  670; 
granted  restraining  interfer(>nce 
with  y)laintiffs'  title  after  seces- 
sion, 699;  granted  restraining  in- 
terference with  chunii  property, 
700;  granted  to  restrain  trustees 
from  diverting  ))roperty,  810; 
granted  to  restrain  use  of  church 
by  minister  who  has  changed  his 
religious  of)inions,  811;  granted 
restraining  interference  with  trus- 
tees in  their  possession  of  {ht)])- 
ertj',  822;  denied  restraining 
irregular  trustees  from  control 
of  property,  823. 

Inspiration,  liible,  notes  on,  41. 

Institution,  of  clergymen,  defined. 
o(W. 

Iowa,  Bible  readiim  in  schools,  note, 
7V.i. 

Iowa  Diocese,  note  on,   'I'l'.l. 

li'cliiiid,  chapel  in,  masses,  bcqncsi 
for  sustained,  7:1. 

Irving,  Edward,  church  I'oumled  bw 
88. 

Ii'ving  S()ci(M\'.  chaiiiv  for  sus- 
tained, 87. 

Isabella,  (^uc-en  of  ."^ijain,  head  of 
(^'atholic  (^hurch  in  .\mcrican 
possessions,  687. 


Jehovah  I're.sbytery  of  Zion,  Prepa- 
ration, Iowa,  noted,  170;  founded 
bv  ('harles  B.  I'hompson,  411; 
sketch  of,  411. 

Jerome,  relation  lo  I'rolcsl.arU  rcf- 
onuation,  04"). 

.I(!suil  Order,  .see  Loyola  and  society 
of  .Jesus,  672. 

Jews,  cemetery,  right  of  disinter- 
ment, question  for  court,  ")9; 
members  of  CJerman  society,  27(>; 
becjuest  sustained,  29;i;  consolida- 
tion <lisapproved,  29.'{;  consolida- 
tion, when  may  lie  set  aside,  29:<; 
dismissal  of  le.acher,  29;};  may 
take  oath  on  ( )1<1  l"<'-tamenl ,  loO; 
legacy  to,  suslaini'd,  468;  Civil 
War  claim,  allowed,  1(4.');  must 
observe  same  rule  as  Christians 


relative  to  Sabbath  observance. 
76:i,  769;  poor  families  in  New 
Haven,  be(|uest  sastained,  8;J7. 

John  Street  Church,  New  York, 
note  on,  M'). 

Judgment,  against  trustees  for  <lel)t. 
when  not  a  lien  on  property,  17; 
ma\'  be  for  cori)oration  in  action 
by  trustees,  19;  ec(4esia'^l  ic.il 
courts,  effect  on  civil  courts,  22-1; 
ecch'sia-stical  court,  how  enforced, 
22();  when  ccmclasive,  227;  ecclci- 
lustical  court,  scope  of  sentence, 
229;  ecclesiastical  courts,  not 
l)iiiding  on  state,  2;jl. 

Judicial  Notice,  I'rotestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  institution  and  in- 
duction, court  will  not  t.-ike 
.judicial  notice  of  meanine,  l')2; 
Koman  Catholic  Church,  civil 
lights  an<l  powers,  couit  will  ?iot 
take  judicial  notice  of.  1.52;  char- 
acter of  American  Congn-gational- 
ism,  182;  various  religious  mat- 
ters, 40t);  Mormon  doctrine  of 
celestial  marriages,  4(M):  that 
certain  acts  constitute  religious 
worshi]),  ().54;  pope's  posit io!i  im- 
der  International  I^aw,  677;  not 
that  smoking  cigar  by  habitual 
smoker  is  a  necessity.  7r)2. 

Julius  II,  Bope,  grant  of  church 
privileges  by.  (■)8.").  ()S7. 

■Juror,  when  not  dis(|ualifie<l,  6. 

.Justice  of  the  Peace,  when  may  c.dl 
meeting.  2.?"),  ;U.").  6.'?9;  when 
caimot  call  pew  holders'  mei'lini:. 
4(iO. 

Justinian's  Coile,  cited,  682. 


K.msas,  reciting  Lord's  Braver  and 
'2'.U\  I's.alm  in  school  d<M's  not  con- 
stitute public  worship,  7K^ 

Kempei-.  .Jackson.  Bishop.  Memorial 
Chiu-ch.   l."):5. 

Kendrick.  Peter  Bichanl.  .\rih- 
bishoj).  appoints  directors  of  cor- 
|)oration,  6.")S. 

Kentucky,  form  of  prayer  u.se<l  in 
school  not  .sectariiin  instruction, 
71."). 

Kentucky  liaplist  Kducalion  So- 
<-ietv,     sub.scription     for     valid, 

7:'.7! 


!H'4 


iNi)i:\ 


K  (•  II  t  u  <•  k  y  Cliri.slian  Missionary 
Oouvciilion.  See  ChriHiian  Mis- 
sionary Society. 

Kinji,  li(>;i(l  of  I'.iiMilish  church,  '112. 

Kinp;,  SainiK-l,  one  of  the  found- 
ers of  Cuinhcrland  I'resbytcrian 
Church,  l'.)(). 

Knox,  John,  relation  to  Protestant 
reformation,  54.">. 

Koran,  use  in  schools,  45;  Moh.ain- 
inedans  may  be  sworn  on,  900. 

Kramer,  Elsie,  author's  reader  and 
.stenograi>her,  acknowledgements 
to,  vi. 

L 

Ladies'  Mite  Society,  unincorpcjr- 
ated,  bequest  invalid,  8'.)3. 

Law,  William,  Mormon  Councilor, 
note  on,  414. 

Lease,  by  church  officers,  when  in- 
junction again.st  refused,  28(5. 

Lecture  Room,  place  of  worshij), 
113;  .social  featherings,  ll.'.. 

Lee,  Daniel,  Rev.,  establishes  In- 
dian missions  in  Oregon,  3o2. 

Lee,  Jason,  Rev.,  establi.shes  Indian 
missions  in  Oregon,  352. 

Legislature,  may  restrict  interments 
and  authorize  removal  of  remains, 
60,  64;  may  authorize  sale  of 
cemetery,  and  reinvestment  of 
proceed-*,  64;  jurisdiction  of  eccle- 
siastical (questions,  227:  entertains 
charges  against  rector,  228;  power 
of  cannot  he  exercised  by  church 
judicatory,  229;  scope  of  author- 
ity on  religious  matters,  595; 
power  to  enact  Sunday  regula- 
tions, 765,  766;  cannot  modify 
trust,  834;  when  legacv  may  be 
validated,  885.  88().       \ 

Libel,  when  minister  liable  for, 
115;  excommunication,  295;  priv- 
ileged communications,  church 
discipline,  295. 

Lien,  when  judgment  against  trus- 
tees not  a  lien  on  projierty,  17. 

Limitations  of  .\ctions.  See  Stat- 
ute of  Limitations. 

Lincoln,  .\braliam,  rresid(>nt.  Proc- 
lamation of  Kmancipalion.  com- 
mended by  Presbyterian  CSeneral 
.■Assembly.  510. 

Lindenwood  Female  College,  elec- 
tion of  trustees,  131. 


l.,(jng  Island  Dioce.se,  I'rotestant 
K])iscopaI  Church,  property  e.\- 
etnpt  from  ta.xation,  553. 

London  ^'early  Meeting,  Friend-, 
organization  and  jjowerH,  255, 
259. 

Lord's  IVayer,  reciting  in  school 
does  not  constitute  public  wor- 
ship, 713. 

Louisiana,  church  questions  for 
ecclesiastical  tribunals  only,  111; 
rule  £us  to  pews,  457;  religious 
freedom  guaranteed,  621 ;  Church 
of  St.  Louis,  note  on,  662;  church 
l)ro])ertv,  wardens  legal  owners 
of,  673." 

Loui.sville,  Ky.,  convention  organ- 
izes Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  360,  361. 

Loyola,  Ignatius,  founder  of  So- 
ciety of  Jesus,  672. 

Luther,  Martin,  .some  writings  ac- 
cepted others  rejected.  297;  rela- 
tion to  reformation,  545. 

Lutheran  Church,  member,  when 
not  disqualified  as  a  juror,  6; 
church  tribunals  have  exclusive 
jurisdiction  of  questions  relating 
to  worshi{)  and  doctrine,  166; 
joint  occupancy  of  property  with 
German  Reformed,  effect,  274; 
division  of  1867,  289;  raini.ster, 
how  chosen,  389 

Lutherans,  history,  297;  organiza- 
tion, 298;  Alaska,  property,  effect 
of  cession  from  RiLssia  to  United 
States,  298;  A.ssociations,  299; 
close  commimion,  300;  confession 
of  sins,  should  it  be  public  or 
private,  300;  dissolving  connec- 
tion with  s^Tiod,  efTect,  301;  CJer- 
man  language  in  service.  301 ; 
Icelandic  Church.  302;  Indej)end- 
ent  Congi-egation,  status,  303; 
minister,  how  emploved,  303; 
New  York  City,  304;  Russian 
toleration,  306;  secession,  306; 
s\-nod,  307;  large  number  in 
Russia,  30(i;  members  of  flernian 
Society.  \\  ashington,  U.  C,  276; 
lnd(^penden*.  injimction  denii^d 
restraining  use  of  church  by  pas- 
tor, 289;  acceptance  of  certain 
doctrines  declared  by  I>uther, 
297;  division  of  societv,  effect, 
700. 


INDEX 


!>25 


M 

Maine,  statute  of  Elizabeth  in  force 
in,  76;  missionary  society,  be- 
quest for,  349;  towns,  parochial 
powers,  801;  powers  of  trustees, 
817. 

Maine  Bapjtist  Missionary'  Conven- 
tion, bequest  sustained,  3(t. 

Maine,  Preaehei-s'  Aid  Society,  be- 
quest sustained,  34t). 

Majority,  may  compromise  suit 
against  society,  3;  may  be  sued 
by  corporation,  4;  may  maintain 
action  for  forcible  entry  and  de- 
tainer, 6;  may  establisli  and  alter 
articles  of  faith,  31;  Baptist 
Church,  power  of,  33;  may  con- 
trol property,  34,  37;  Campbell- 
ites,  control  of  property,  52; 
power  of,  114,  110,  142;  when 
may  take  property  into  another 
church,  117;  expulsion  of  minority 
sustained,  14S,  154;  when  may 
not  control  projierty,  271;  power 
at  society  elections,  238;  when 
may  control  use?  of  j)ro]')erty,  287; 
power  at  cor])orate  meetinc,  314; 
when  may  be  restrained  by  mi- 
nority, 387;  may  not  divert  prop- 
erty from  use  intended,  .52o;  notes 
on  rifiht  of,  532;  notes  antl  i)ower 
of,  541;  when  acts  binding  on 
minority,  008;  seceding,  when 
cannot  take  i)roperty,  030;  gen- 
eral powers,  039;  secession,  when 
cannot  control  property,  042; 
may  control  on  questions  relating 
to  music,  053;  general  powers, 
701,  834,  802. 

Mandamus,  cemetery,  burial,  308; 
expulsion  of  member,  308;  joint 
use  of  property,  308;  member, 
restoration,  309;  ministcu",  rein- 
statement, 310;  special  election, 
311;  trustees,  title,  312;  vestry, 
312;  vestry,  duty  to  altenrl  me<^t- 
ing,  312;  not  i)roper  remedy  to 
j)revent  reading  Hii)lc  in  schools, 
45;  not  granted  to  coinpcl  l)urial 
of  Freemason  in  Hoiuaii  Catholic 
cemetery,  t)4;  wheTi  not  available, 
228;  rector  may  be  reqiiiicd  to 
give  notice  of  election,  235;  can- 
not be  issued  to  induct  intt)  nflirc 
IKTSon  not  regularly  eleeliMJ,  23t>; 


granted  requiring  rector  to  join 
in  notice  of  special  election,  237; 
not  proper  remedy  to  deternjine 
validity  of  election,  239;  rector 
recjuired  to  recognize  result  of 
(^lection,  240;  not  granttn]  to  com- 
f)el  church  to  receive  pastor,  3S1, 
383;  contrary  rule,  3.S4,  385,  38tj; 
when  not  granted  to  reinstate 
minister,  397;  not  proper  remefl\- 
to  recover  possession  of  pew,  457, 
400;  not  proper  remed\'  to  test 
question  of  expulsion,  (J09;  not 
granted  to  compel  city  ofiicers  to 
enforce  Sunrlay  Li(|Uor  Law,  7S1. 

Mansfield,  Lord,  sketch  of  early 
Christian  custom  as  to  court.s  on 
the  Sabbath,  759. 

Mansion  House  of  Cod,  Lord  Coke's 
definition  of  church,  113. 

Mairiage,  Mormon,  note  on.  411; 
mav  be  performed  on  Sundav, 
708. 

Maryland,  Chm-ch  of  England 
established  church,  122;  termi- 
nated, 122. 

Massachusetts,  status  of  ])ublic 
teacher  in,  11;  .statute  prohibit- 
ing blasphemy  not  repugnant  io 
constitution,  49;  English  doc- 
trine of  charitable  uses  in  force 
in,  70;  establishment  of  Chri.s- 
tianify  in,  99;  cori)orate  character 
of  churches  in,  110;  Friends,  pre- 
parative meetings,  granted  cor- 
l)orate  powers,  2.58;  jjurish,  note 
on,  435;  rule  as  to  parsonag«>s, 
441;  rule  as  to  pew,  457;  i)arish, 
rule  a.s  to  title  to  propt-rty,  534; 
bill  of  right.s,  religious  fri*«'doni, 
022;  status  of  religious  corj mira- 
tion, 039;  religious  soci(>ly,  cler- 
ical organization  only,  status,  ()40; 
appt)rtiunment  of  money  r.aisixl 
for  jmblic  woi-ship,  055;  Hible 
reading  and  jirayer  at  oiMMiing  of 
school  .session,  when  sustained, 
713;  Shakers,  religious  freedom, 
722;  towns,  p.irochial  powei-s,  SOI. 

Ma.<.ses,  d.fiiied,  .U:;;  des.ribed.  313; 
not  a  superslil  ious  use,  ;U3;  valid 
in  Ireland,  477;  wiien  iH-tpH-sl 
liabh'  to  transfer  lax,  795;  celebra- 
tion of,  when  not  a  charitable 
object,  7(». 

.McAdow,  Samuel,  one  of  ili<-  foun<i- 


{)2(; 


iMn;\ 


ors  of  ( 'uiiil)('rlaii(l  I'rr'shvlfri.'in 
Chuirli,  V.H). 

Mrcliaiiic's  Lien,  uhcii  ;ictioii  to  cii- 
forcp  may  he  inaiiitaiiu'd,  7,  S; 
wlicn  IK)  act  ion  against  imincor- 
jioratcd  society,  S;  clnifcli  is 
huildiiifi  mulcf  Lien  Law,  8;  can- 
not !)('  cnfofccd  af^ainst  ccnictcry, 
<S;  pastor  also  a  nioohanic,  when 
may  enforce  lien,  11;  on  church 
edifice,  cannot  bo  enforced  Jigainst 
(iraveyard,  03;  subject  to  prior 
mortfiiific  on  land,  417. 

Meelitifis,  by  laws,  .'^14;  chairman, 
.'^14;  majority,  ;}14;  notice,  315; 
(|Uorum,  315;  silence  on  taking 
vote,  efTect,  31G;  when  may  be 
called  by  justice  of  the  peace,  235, 
639;  presiding  officer,  casting 
vote,  558,  5G7;  New  York  rule, 
568;  notice  of  annual  meeting 
necessarj',  639. 

Melanchthon,  Phihp,  relation  to 
Protestant  reformation,  545. 

Members,  admission,  eiTect  of  by 
laws,  317;  Baptist,  powers  of 
congiTgation,  31 S;  dismissal,  318; 
dues,  efTect  of  nonpayment,  318; 
equality,  318;  excommunication, 
efTect,  318;  expulsion,  319;  exj^ul- 
sion,  damages,  321;  expulsion, 
evidence  required,  321 ;  exinilsion, 
notice,  322;  expulsion,  rules,  no- 
tice, 323;  general  duties,  323;  how 
constituted,  323;  judicial  control, 
324;  law  governing,  324;  letters 
of  dismission,  effect  of,  324;  liabil- 
ity for  debts,  324;  powers,  325; 
quahfications,  how  determined, 
325;  relation  to  society,  32t); 
rights,  326;  .stated  attendant,  ef- 
fect of  nonat tendance,  327;  sta- 
tus, how  determined,  327;  town 
.society,  327;  transfer  bv  Legis- 
lature, 328;  withdrawal.  328; 
withdrawal,  effect,  328;  incorpo- 
ration, efTect,  ()09;  expelleil,  no 
claim  for  damages  against  cor- 
poration, 609;  corporation  may 
sue,  4;  may  compromi.M>  suit 
against  society,  3;  individual  may 
not  recover  damages  for  distm-b- 
ing  him  while  attending  religious 
servic(>s,  4;  juror,  when  not  di  — 
iiualified,  6;  not  individually  lial)lc 
for  pastor's  salary,   13;  when  in- 


ilividually  liable  for  cliurdi  <li-bt, 
8;  when  not  liable  lo  [KTsonal 
judgment,  14;  «>(|uitable  right 
against  prop<'rty,  14;  when  may 
not  sue  Cither  memlwrs,  IH;  when 
m.ay  sue  trustees,  19;  of  unin- 
corpf)rated  .society,  when  fwrson- 
ally  liabl*',  20;  expulsion,  when 
court  will  not  consider  regularity 
of,  34,  150;  authority  of  church 
over,  108;  churcli,  <;xpulsioti,  112; 
governed  by  rules  and  regula- 
tions, 116;  court  will  not  decide 
who  ought  to  be,  150;  status, 
when  courts  may  determine,  154; 
need  not  be  inhabitants  of  parish, 
181;  trial,  relation  to  tribunal, 
229;  injunction  against  illegal 
tribunal,  229;  expulsion,  effect, 
Evangelical  Association,  246;  ex- 
pulsion, injimction  re-straining, 
285;  expulsion,  when  injunction 
denied,  286;  intei-fering  with 
property,  injunction  granted,  286; 
interfering  with  tru.stees,  injunc- 
tion granted,  286;  expulsion, 
mandamus  to  test  right  of,  308; 
expulsion,  restoration,  mandamus 
not  profx^r  remedy,  309;  contra, 
310;  expulsion  without  notice, 
invalid,  319;  exTiulsion  for  polit- 
ical rea.sons.  321;  relation  to 
corporation  and  society,  327;  re- 
nunciation of  membership,  what 
constitutes,  328;  termination  of 
membership,  effect  on  property, 
533;  expulsion,  effect  on  property 
rights,  534;  exclusive  right  of 
suffrage,  591 ;  when  not  liable  for 
debts  of  .society.  (303;  ownership 
of  jn-operty,  effect  of  dissolution 
of  corporation,  605;  expulsion, 
corporation  no  power  of,  609; 
when  not  liable  on  corjiorate 
debt,  609;  when  minors  included, 
610;  when  individually  liable  for 
.society  debts,  641;  when  court 
may  determine  rights  of,  65S; 
expulsion,  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  effect,  ()70;  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church,  when  excomnumi- 
cated  by  civil  marriage,  (i7S; 
expidsion.  Shakers,  exjK'lle(l  mem- 
ber, no  action  for  damages.  721; 
when  exempt  from  taxation  in 
^Massachusetts.  795;  Pri'sbyterian 


iMn:x 


cannot  bo  taxed  for  Congrega- 
tional minister,  795;  withdrawinji, 
when  not  liable  to  as-sessinent , 
795;  exconinuniieation.  when  no- 
tice required,  S20;  ofiicially  and 
individually  interested  in  trust 
for  society.  Sit);  unincori)orat(>d 
society,  extent  of  liability,  845; 
when  cannot  vote  at  meeting  of 
another  denomination,  8(59;  or- 
fianization,  329;  majority  may 
control  property,  .329. 

Mercer  Hom<>,  Presbyterian  Church 
note  on,  493. 

Merger,  of  religious  societies,  effect, 
115. 

Messenger,  to  Baptist  association, 
function,  31. 

Methodist  Book  Concern,  noted, 
339. 

Methodist  Church  of  Canada,  min- 
ister, status,  Conference  ha.s  ex- 
clusive jurisdiction,  155;  historical 
sketch,  331;  form  of  government, 
fixing  status  of  juinister,  3)51; 
separation  from  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  331,  345. 

Methodist  Episcopal  Chtn-ch,  organ- 
ization, 333;  anti-slavery  control, 
335;  Baltimore  Conference,  335; 
Baltimore  Conference,  separation 
of  1844,  33S;  Bible  .society  dis- 
continued, 3;5S;  bishop's  authority 
to  consolidate  churches,  339; 
Book  Concern,  340;  Church  Ex- 
tension Society,  341;  church  in- 
vestigations, 341;  consolidation, 
342;  corporators,  cannot  evict 
trustees,  342;  division,  342;  di- 
vision of  1844,  343;  Drew  Theo 
logical  Seminaiy,  344;  Foreign 
Missionary  Society,  bequest,  344; 
General  Confer(>nce,  jjower  to 
divide  church,  344;  Illinois, 
Preachers'  Aid  Society,  345;  John 
Street  (Church,  New  ^"ork,  345; 
Maine,  Preadiers'  .\id  Soci(>tv, 
340;  Methodist  Preachers'  .\id 
Society,  lialtimore,  Md.,  340; 
ministers,  how  appoiii!e(l,  347; 
minister's  salary,  'MS;  missionary 
society,  349;  missionary  l)e(iuest, 
349;  mi.ssions,  349;  New  York, 
9th  Ward,  becjuest  for  purch.'is*- 
of  coal,  350;  Ohio  cori)orati(in. 
3;50;  Oregon  missicjn,  :551 ;  i>r<>)i- 


erty  to  be  held  in  trust,  355; 
.separation.  Church  South.  |)lan 
final,  355;  separation,  Clii!rch 
South,  Molston  (^inference,  35<) 
se])aiation,  title  to  local  property, 
35(1;  se]iarati(jn,  1844,  liome  rul»> 
as  to  future  relation,  357;  separa- 
tion, when  pro|)eity  camujt  b" 
transferr(>d  to  Church  South,  357; 
'I'ennessee  Annual  (Jonference, 
357;  when  minister  caimot  Ix? 
excluded  from  church  edific'.  384; 
minister,  no  contract  relation 
with  society,  394;  deacon,  local 
j)reacher,  when  exempt  from  tax- 
aticjn,  399;  minister  occupying 
l)ar.sonage,  relation  to  society, 
442;  preacher  s(>nt  by  bishop  must 
be  accepted,  537;  general,  before 
incorporation  could  not  receive 
legacy,  884;  minister,  no  contract 
relation  as  to  .salary.  10;  niini.>*- 
ter's  salary,  h(nv  deficiency  col- 
lected, ]();  loc;d  society,  wlu-n 
liable  to  .action  for  deficiency  in 
minister's  s.-dary,  10;  (Quarterly 
Conference  fixes  minister's  sal.ary. 
10;  Discipline  not  superior  to 
Stale  law,  110;  con.solidation  of 
churches  by  Bishop  Walden  sus- 
tained, 142;  equal  lay  repn'.senta- 
tion  ado])ti'd,  334;  division,  elTect 
on  title  to  i)roi)erty,  5:i3. 

Methodi.st  Episcopal  (  hurch.  Soul  h, 
arbitration  un<ler  rules  of,  valid- 
ity, 23;  origin,  historical  sketrh. 
359;  organization,  3t)l;  Baltimore 
Conf(M-ence,  3t)l;  Book  Concern, 
Church  North,  .sharing  proceed-^. 
3()3;  border  society,  :5()3;  chunli 
edifice,  change  of  site,  eficct,  3til; 
Corvallis  College.  Oregon,  :{<i4; 
liability  for  loi'al  debts,  3ti4;  mis- 
sions, 305;  property,  division  of 
general  church,  effect.  3()5;  prop- 
i-rty,  when  witiidrawing  members 
cannot  ch:uig<'  title,  3()7;  prop- 
erty, who  m.iy  enforce  trust,  'M\S; 
pul)lishing  house,  taxation,  3tkS. 

Methodist  Preachers'  .\i<l  Society, 
Baltimore.  M.uyland,  bpcpH'st 
su.stained,  34t). 

Methotlist  Prolest.int  Ciiurch,  Cen- 
eral  ConferiMice,  when  enfitle<l  in 
properly  of  i-xlinct  church,  370; 
property,    forfeiture.    fnM^    .-^'ats, 


!>L'S 


iM)i;.\ 


.S70;  property,  socossion,  rITcct, 
370;  property,  title  in  trustoc'H, 
cfTecl,  ;371. 

Moxiro,  Roman  C'atholic;  Chiirrh, 
title  to  property,  t>74. 

Michigan,  const  it  ut  ion,  when  Bihle 
rcadinjis  do  not  vif)late,  44;  selec- 
tion of  trustees  doe.s  iKJt  iimke  a 
corporulion,  010. 

Milman,  Dean,  history  of  Latin 
Christianity,  (juoted,  ()82. 

M  i  n  i  s  t  ens,  occuin'inK  pansonage, 
ejectment  ajiainsl,  5;  action  for 
salary,  8;  when  previous  immor- 
ality no  defense,  9;  action  for 
salary,  cannot  be  maintained  un- 
der call  not  accepted,  9;  when 
not  entitled  to  emoluments  of 
office,  9;  society  must  use  due 
dilip;ence  to  collect  subscriptions, 
10;  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
no  contract  relation  as  to  salary, 
10;  Massachusetts,  constitutional 
limitation  on  action  for  salary,  10; 
Methodist  Kjiiscopal  Church,  sal- 
arj',  how  deficiency  collected,  10; 
when  may  enforce  mechanic's 
lien,  11;  right  to  compensation 
a  property  right,  11;  when  can- 
not maintain  action  to  recover 
moneys  assessed  for  public  wor- 
ship, 11;  town,  when  hable  for 
salary,  12;  not  an  emijloyee  of 
church,  12;  dismission,  when  does 
not  prevent  action  for  salary,  12; 
salary  fixed  by  the  parish  com- 
mittee, when  conclusive,  12;  not 
entitled  to  salary  during  suspen- 
.sion,  12;  if  there  is  no  contract 
for  salary  he  is  entitled  to  a  just 
compensation,  \'S;  salary,  mem- 
bers not  individually  liable  for, 
18;  statute  of  limitations  ai>plies 
to  claim  for  ministerial  service, 
13;  settled,  when  may  maintain 
action  of  trespass,  17;  manager 
of  society,  does  not  prevent  so- 
ciety receiving  bequest,  70;  Con- 
gregational, bequest  of  income 
for,  72;  trust  for  supi)ort  of,  sus- 
tained, .S6;  liability  for  libel,^  ll.'iL 
when  conducting  religious  service, 
congregation  implied,  110;  Church 
of  England,  cannot  refuse  to  bury 
child  of  a  dissenter,  120;  Church 
of  Cod  at  llarrisburg,  status,  124; 


change  of  religious  belief,  when 
court  may  consider,  147;  title  U) 
office,  when  court  may  not  c;on- 
sider  question,  lo.'i;  Meth«Hlist 
Church  of  (Janada,  status,  ("on- 
fcrence  may  determine,  1.").");  em- 
ployment and  i)ayrn('nt,  civil 
courts  no  jurisdiction,  I'jti;  ("on- 
grr'gational  Church,  nu'thotl  of 
selecting,  181;  Congregationid 
Church,  how  settled,  184;  when 
not  entitled  to  recover  income  of 
parish  fund,  184;  change  of  reli- 
gious tenets,  219;  illegal  suspen- 
sion, 22;i;  subject  to  jurisdiction 
of  ecclesia-stical  courts,  224;  Bajn 
tist,  when  not  deemed  elder  under 
election  law,  236;  Evangelical 
Association,  when  appf)intment 
invalid,  247;  dissolving  relation, 
when  injunction  granted,  287; 
when  restrained  from  occupying 
church,  287,  289;  adopting  hereti- 
cal views,  injunctif)n  against  use 
of  church,  288;  Independent  L>i- 
theran  Society,  injun(-tion  denied 
restraining  pastor  from  using 
church,  289;  Baptist,  when  re- 
strained from  using  churcii,  289; 
vestry  may  call  without  first 
having  salary  fixed.  2?>0;  Lu- 
theran, how  called,  304;  dismissal, 
restoration,  when  mandamus  not 
proper  remedy,  311:  cannot  arbi- 
trarily dismiss  member,  318; 
M  e  t  h  o  d  i  st  Episcopal  Church, 
traveling  preachers,  sovereign 
power  of,  345;  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Chiu-ch,  how  appointed, 
346;  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
no  contract  relation  with  societv, 
348.  .398;  first  settled,  defincni, 
374,  .387;  Emeritus,  when  status 
declared,  380;  settled,  defined, 
exemption  from  jury  duty,  .387; 
settled,  note  on,  389;  includes 
ordained  deacon,  391;  ordination, 
resulting  .status,  392;  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  appointed  by 
bishop  must  be  accepted,  .537; 
deviating  in  doctrine,  restrained 
from  occupying  pulpit,  584;  peo- 
ple taxed  for  support  of,  591; 
may  pre.serve  order  at  public 
worship,  654;  when  comment  on 
conduct    of    constitutes    slandii, 


INDEX 


U-^'J 


727;  subscription  for  support  of, 
T5o;  einploviricnt  on  Sunday 
valid,  751;  doc.-;  not  hold  public 
office,  exempt  from  taxation,  70(i; 
salary,  when  trust  funds  cannot 
be  used  for,  S()3;  ap|)ointment  of 
church  trustees,  807;  call,  373, 
494;  call,  inelT(>ctive,  voluntary 
contributions,  how  disposed  of, 
373;  Calvinistic  Baptist  societies, 
374;  changing  religious  belief,  374; 
contract,  374;  contract,  dissolu- 
tion, 375;  (covenant,  what  consti- 
tutes breach,  375;  delined,  37(i; 
defined,  ('ongregational,  370;  de- 
fined, Massat^huset  Is,  377;  de- 
posed, cannot  occupy  church,  377; 
deposed,  status,  37.S;  dismissal, 
378;  dissolving  relation,  379; 
ecclesitLstical  council,  3iSU;  educa- 
tion, 380;  examination  and  li- 
cense, 380;  exclusion  fi-om  chuich 
edifice,  381;  exconununicatcd, 
when  society  may  not  employ, 
386;  ex(;onmiunication,  exiniLsion, 
387;  excommunication,  387;  ex- 
emption from  jury  dutj',  387; 
fii'st  settled,  387;  general  rights, 
387;  heresy,  388;  intruding  into 
church,  388;  huid  granted  fin- 
support,  389;  Lutheran,  how 
chosen,  389;  marriage  ceremony, 
right  to  perform,  390;  member  of 
association,  392;  obligations  ;i93; 
office,  not  public,  393;  office  not 
a  vested  property  right,  393; 
ordinance,  1^94;  parish,  394;  par- 
ish, incumlx'iit's  title  to  prop- 
erty, 394;  pastoriil  relation,  395; 
pa.stor  defined,  395;  pa.stor's  ojjin- 
ions,  395:  Presbj-terian  rule, 
395;  priest  s  profession  his  jh-oj)- 
erty,  39(>;  public  duly,  39(1 ; 
regularity  of  api)ointment,  39(); 
relation  to  church,  397;  rehi- 
tion  to  society,  397;  reinstate- 
ment, mandamus  not  projjer 
remedy,  397;  removal,  398;  right 
to  occupy  house  of  worship,  39S; 
salary,  act  ions  for,  398;  salarj',  de- 
vise for,  398;  settlement,  398; 
statedly  odiciates,  mcming,  398; 
support,  duty  of  church,  399; 
taxation,  exemption,  .'599;  tenure, 
401;  terminating  relation,  402; 
selection,   rresbvterian  rule  395; 


Prf)testant  dcfini-d,  39(>:  Xnrwe- 
gian  K  V  a  n  g  e  1  i  c  a  1  I.ulheran 
Church,  how  called,  427;  new 
town,  status,  438;  Nlaiiie  pari.^h 
system,  note  on,  438;  occupancy 
of  parsonage,  relation  to  societv. 
441 ;  land  devis(  d  for.  status,  4r)S; 
support,  legacy  for,  sustained, 
4(38;  Presbyterian  Church,  char- 
acter of  office,  how  called,  493; 
excluded  from  Clirard  College, 
593;  ministerial  fund  exempt,  79ti; 
bequest  for  poor,  sustained,  837. 

Minister  of  the  (Jospcl.  defined,  85. 

Minority,  caimctt  maintain  action 
for  partition,  13;  when  may  con- 
trol property,  35,  3(),  25;i,  271, 
()3(j;  may  lie  restrained  from  u.«e 
of  building,  115;  when  may  con- 
trol election,  238;  uhen  entitled 
to  proj)erty,  370,  583;  when  en- 
titled to  injunction  against  ma- 
jority, 38();  when  not  entitled  to 
property,  427;  when  may  resist 
diversion  by  majority,  524;  when 
cannot  control  jntiperty,  5.34; 
when  bound  by  acts  of  majority, 
608;  Umitation  of  right  of,  675; 
.secession,  when  an  abandonment, 
695;  Congr(>gational  Church, can- 
not expel  majority,  t>96;  when 
mav  hokl  projx'rtv  afti-r  division, 
()97",  703;  general  lights  of,  703. 

Missionary  House  of  Hest,  Prt^by- 
terian  Church,  note  on,  496. 

MLssionar\' Society,  Methodist  Kpi.s- 
coy)al  Chinch,  becpH'st  f(tr,  344. 
349,  3.")0;  devise  rejected,  .society 
unincorporated,  ;;t9:  liable  for 
transfer  tax,  319;  mission  to 
\\  !uscoi)um  Indian.-",  .351;  receives 
comjK'nsation  for  ( )regon  |)roiv 
erly,  355. 

Missions,  A  s  s  o  c  i  a  t  e  Hefonne<l 
Church,  bequest  sustained,  29; 
Maine  Baptist  Missionary  Con- 
veiuioM,  .31);  be(iuest  for,  74;  Con- 
gregaiional  Cliurch.  note  on.  1.^5; 
Methodi.--t  lipiscopal  Church, 
South,  devise  sustained,  365;  mi.-<- 
sion  defined,  103;  mL-ysioimry  de- 
fined, 403;  l)e(|uesl.  uncertain, 
404;  legatee  not  capable  of  taking 
bequest,  404;  la.x.ation  of  be<|Uest, 
exemption,  404;  testator's  inten- 
tion,   105;   legacy  sustained,    l(>9; 


!»;;(» 


iM»i;.\ 


riDlcstiml  I'lpiscopal  ('liiircli, 
Icf^iicy  su.st:iin('(i,  ,SS4. 

Missdiiri,  ("hiis(i:in  Science  cli.irler 
refuscfl,  104. 

MLstako,  ih  deed,  action  If)  cor- 
rect, 15. 

Mob,  i)roperfy  destroyed  by,  value 
may  be  recoveretl,  rVM. 

Mobile,  .\labania,  Roman  C^atholic 
Clmrcli,  Si)anish  Kinp;  buys  proj)- 
erty  for,  H86. 

Moderator,  synod,  Associate  Re- 
formed (^hurch,  powers  and  func- 
tions, 20. 

Monument,  when  may  be  removed 
l)y  otluT  tlian  owner,  63;  see 
'i'ombstone;  bequest  for  keeping 
in  repair,  sustained,  71. 

Moore's  Digest  of  International 
Law,  quoted,  669. 

Moralitv,  mav  be  taught  in  schools, 
44. 

Mormons,  church,  disincorporation, 
effect,  406;  creed,  judicial  notice, 
406;  incorporation,  407;  Indi^- 
pendcnce,  Missouri;  Church  of 
Latter  Day  Saints,  409;  Jehovah 
Presbytery  of  Zion;  Preparation, 
Iowa,  411;  marriage,  divorce,  411; 
marriage,  412;  name  and  succes- 
sion, 413. 

Mortgage,  condition  broken,  right 
to  foreclose,  416;  court  order,  416; 
leave  of  com-t,  416;  priority  as  be- 
tween inortgage  and  mechanic's 
lien,  417;  validity;  archbishop 
having  no  title  to  the  land,  417; 
validity,  executing  without  author- 
ity, 417;  validity,  extent  of  trus- 
tees' authoritv,  41S;  validitv,  le- 
gitimate debt",  418,  539;  validity, 
meeting  of  trustees;  purchase 
money,  418;  validity,  trustees 
afterward  ousted  from  office,  418; 
validity,  trustees  no  power  to 
mortgage  property,  419;  Re- 
formed Dutch  Church,  validitj- 
sustained,  583. 

Mortmain,  defined,  420;  Delaware. 
420;  (^irenada,  420;  Pennsvlvania, 
420;  South  Carolina,  420." 

Municipal  Corporation,  ordinance 
prohibiting  religious  assemblies, 
sustained,  21. 

Municipal  Ordinances,  how  affects 
camp   meeting   within   corporate 


limits,  54;  maj'  n-giilate  inter- 
ments, 63;  parades,  421;  preach- 
ing on  lioston  Common,  421; 
di.scriminalion  as  to  Sabbath  ob- 
servance, 619,  M9;  South  Carf>- 
lina,  ;ls  to  Sabbath  observance, 
sustained,  7f)8. 
.Music,  instrumental,  action  to  re- 
strain u.se  of,  18;  Cam|)b<!llites, 
singing  school  not  permit  I  e<l  in 
church  building,  52;  befpiest  for 
singers,  80;  Christian  Church, 
organ  use  discontinued,  94; 
Christian  Science,  organ,  liability 
of  treasurer  for  funds  collected 
for,  105;  singing,  when  not  di.s- 
turbance  of  meeting,  214;  choir, 
when  singing  not  disturbance  of 
meeting,  214;  bequest  for,  when 
valid,  422;  country  choirs,  422; 
instrumental,  422;  organist,  422; 
instrumental  prohibited  in  Scotch 
Presbyterian  Church,  505;  organ 
in  service,  minority  may  not 
introduce  against  majority's  pro- 
test, 653;  musical  instruction 
when  not  worship,  653. 

N 

Nation,  Christian  in  policy,  99. 

Nebraska,  Roman  Cathohc  Church, 
status  of,  675;  when  u.se  of  school- 
house  for  Sunday  School  does  not 
make  it  a  place  of  public  worship, 
694;  religious  worship  described, 
714. 

Necessity,  under  Sunday  Law,  de- 
fined, 752. 

Nevada  Orphan  Asylum,  a  sec- 
tarian institution,  714. 

New  ]""ngland  "Nearly  Meeting, 
Friends,  note  on,  262. 

New  Hampshire,  to\\'n,  parochial 
powers,  802. 

New  Jerusalem  Church.  See  Swe- 
denborgians. 

New  Thought  Church,  described. 
424. 

New  Testament,  only  rule  of  faith 
and  practice,  30;  used  in  adminis- 
tering oaths,  41. 

New  York,  trustees,  must  sue  in 
name  of  corporation,  18;  statute 
of  Elizabeth  not  in  force,  77; 
Christianity   the  religion   of   the 


iNi)i:\ 


i»::i 


people,  99;  questions  of  faith  and 
practice  not  subject  to  review  bj* 
civil  courts,  l.i7;  rule  as  to 
membership  in  corpoiation,  tUO; 
status  of  religious  societies  under 
act  of  1813,  G40;  Uoinan  Catholic 
churches,  how  incorporated.  G76; 
Society  of  Shakers,  not  a  religious 
corporation,  722. 

Nonconformists,  Ladj'  H  e  w  1  e  y 's 
charity  for,  85. 

North  Carolina,  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Chui'ch,  division  of  diocese, 
effect,  554. 

Norwegian  EvangeUcal  Lutheran 
Church,  organization  and  form  of 
government,  425;  independent  so- 
ciety, division  of  property,  426; 
property,  division,  effect,  427; 
tiustees,  controversy  over  elec- 
tion not  a  .schism,  428. 

Northwest  Texas  Conference,  rela- 
tion to  Waco  Female  College,  3G4. 

Norwich,  Connecticut,  three  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Churches  consol- 
idated, 339,  342. 

Nui.sance,  when  ringing  of  church 
bells  not,  40;  damages,  429. 

Oath,  defined,  430,  900;  Jew,  430, 
!»()();  idolater,  899;  Mohammedan, 
on  Koran,  900;  Gentiles,  mode  of 
taking,  900. 


59tj;  Methodisi  Kpisropal  Chiinli 
incorporated  in,  350. 

Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  Kriends,  note- 
on,  2(jl. 

Old  Ladi<'s'  Home,  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  bequest  su-stained, 
555. 

Oneida  Community,  described,  171. 

Order  of  St.  Menedict,  described, 
172. 

Oregon.  leligious  freiHlom  guaran- 
teed, ()23. 

Oregon  Mission,  Methodist  Episco- 
|)al  Church,  note  on,  351. 

Orphan  Asylum,  betiue.st  for  sas- 
tained,  77;  when  not  place  of 
worship,  653;  Hrooklyn,  not  a 
common  school,  ()7t);  St.  Mary's 
Boys'  Orphan  .Vsylum.  Roches- 
ter, status,  70S. 

Orthodox  (Inck  Catholic  Ru.ssian 
Chm'ch,  comparison  with  other 
CJreek  chinches.  27S;  injunction 
preventing  transfer  of  property 
to,  279. 

Old  Testament,  used  in  administer- 
ing oaths  to  Jews,  42. 

Overholtzer,  Rev.  John,  leader  of 
faction  of  Mennonites,  329. 

Overeeers,  Quakers,  title  to  office, 
how  determined,  158;  Friend.s, 
method  of  selection,  258. 


O 

Ocean  Grove  Association,  restric- 
tion on  sale  of  liquor  not  affected 
by  A.sbury  Park  licen.se,  55. 

Officers,  de  facto,  what  constitutes, 
18;  ptustor  and  deacons  in  Baptist 
Church,  36;  (Christian  Church 
constitute  corporation,  95;  when 
action  of  subject  to  judicial  in- 
quiry, 156;  Quakers,  overseers, 
title  to  office,  how  determined, 
158;  may  remove  disturbers  of 
meeting,  212;  committee,  tenure, 
431;  de  facto,  431;  eligibility, 
when  presumed,  431;  holding 
over,  432. 

Official  Board,  I'nited  Brethren  in 
Christ,  functions,  856. 

Ohio,  constitution  does  not  reslniin 
nor  recpiire  reading  religious  l)ool\'< 
in  schools.  45;  status  of  Cliri'^- 
tianily,  UK);  religious  freedom  in, 


P 

Papinian,  quoted,  use  of  church 
property,  682. 

Parent  and  Chikl,  when  father  may 
not  di-lurl)  meeting  by  forcibly 
removing  child,  212. 

Parish,  differs  from  church,  181; 
church  members  usually  inhal)- 
itants  of,  181;  minister,  how  .se- 
l(>cte(l,  181;  funil,  when  minister 
not  entitled  to  recover,  184;  rf- 
ligious  .society  in,  status,  ;12S: 
minister,  general  status,  394; 
town  as.  New  l-'ngland  rule,  StXI; 
business,  how  transacte<l,  43:5; 
clerk,  433;  committee,  conlnicl, 
434;  defined.  434;  di.ssolution.  ef- 
fect, 434;  division,  effect,  434; 
ecclesiiustic.'il  council,  435;  Mas^sa- 
chu.«etts,  435;  Mjussachusctts,  his- 
tory, 435;  imH'ling  liouse,  m.-iy  l)e 
Ica.sed,  436;  meeting  house,   title 


!»;!l' 


l\hi:.\ 


.'iftcr  division  of  town,  4',i(\;  mem- 
l)cr.s.  liability  for  debt,  4:3(); 
iii('inl)(r,  it'iiril)iir.sciiiciil  for  claim 
paid,  VM;  m('iiil)orslii[t,  VM;  inin- 
Lstcr,  4;j7;  niinisltT,  how  ap- 
point cd,  4.'JS;  minister's  titlo  tf) 
property,  43S;  minor,  taxation, 
4;38;  parishionor,  4.'i.S;  parsonage, 
439;  poor  parish,  4"}1);  powers, 
4:59;  I'  r  o  t  e  s  t  a  n  t  Ej)iacopal 
Church,  defined,  439;  Roman 
Catholic,  440;  taxation,  440; 
Massachusetts,  rule  as  to  title 
to  i)roperty,  534;  rtjuister,  how 
available  tus  evidence,  ()7<). 

Parish  (Jommittee,  when  minister's 
salary  fixed  by,  conclusive,  12. 

Parishioner,  defined,  43S. 

Park,  cemetery  may  be  taken  for, 
64.  ; 

Parsonage,  minister  occupying, 
ejectment  against,  5;  division  of 
local  society,  effect,  305;  under 
parish  .system,  note  on,  439; 
Mas.sachusetts  rule,  441;  mini.s- 
ter's  occupancy,  441;  town  land, 
442;  trust  for,  when  invalid,  443; 
use,  443;  when  exempt  from  tax- 
ation, 796;  see  Taxation,  sub- 
titl<>  Parsonage,  796,  585. 

Particular  Baptist  Church,  Particu- 
lar Baptists,  444. 

ParticuUu"  Bapti.sts,  ijoted,  30. 

Partition,  minority  carmot  maintain 
action  for,  13;  denied  in  suit 
against  Separatists,  175;  joint 
church  ownership,  445;  of  projv 
erty  of  Shakers  not  permitted, 
724. 

Partridge,  Edward,  bought  land  for 
Mormons,  409. 

Pastor,  dissolving  relation,  8,  9,  12; 
Evangelical  Lutheran  must  be 
member  of  synod,  9;  when  maj* 
enforce  mechanics'  lien,  10;  note 
given  by,  when  no  action  lies 
against  building  committee,  14; 
I'emoved,  restrained  from  fur- 
ther official  acts,  32;  in  Baptist 
Church,  how  settled,  37;  changing 
reUgious  doctrine,  effect,  269; 
when  trustees  not  restrained  from 
emploj'ing  another,  289;  not  en- 
titled to  injunction  to  reinstate 
after  exclusion  by  majority  of 
congregation,  303;  call,  right  to 


contribution.s,  374;  authority  to 

regulate  worship,  379;  trustfM^'s 
rest  raiiii'd  from  prevent  iiig  u.'-e 
of  church,  3Si3;  relation  describe<J, 
395;  defined,  395;  opinions  sub- 
ject to  denominational  control 
nnd  di.scipline,  395;  st!ife<^l  supply 
!s  not  a,  396;  relation  to  church, 
397;  statedly  ofhciates,  meaning 
of,  398;  salary,  land  may  be  sola 
to  pay,  534;  Protestant  I'jpLscopal 
("hurch,  status  of  reader,  556. 

Patronage,  right  of,  lloman  Cath- 
olic Church  in  America,  possessed 
by  Spani.^h  sovereigns,  688. 

Peace,  breach  of,  defined,  749. 

Penn,  William,  Christianity  estab- 
lished in  Penasylvania,  100;  note 
on,  267;  declaration  on  religious 
toleration,  650,  676. 

Pennsylvtjnia,  C(jnstitution,  reading 
Bible  in  schools  no  violation  of, 
45;  statute  of  EUzabeth  not  in 
force  in,  70;  common  law  prevails 
as  to  charitable  u.ses,  71;  Chri.-*- 
tianity  part  of  common  law,  100; 
Christian  Science  charter  refusetl, 
105;  lay  control  of  church  prop- 
erty, 531;  rehgious  freedom,  623; 
religious  toleration,  (i49;  religious 
garb  in  ])ubhc  schools,  626,  715; 
})ov,ers  of  trustees,  817. 

Penasylvania  Convention,  member- 
ship and  powers,  555. 

Perkins,  PL  K.  W.,  Rev.,  establishes 
Indian  mi.ssions  in  Oregon,  352. 

Perley,  Ira,  Judge,  opinion.  Congre- 
gational associatioiLs,  ISO. 

Perpetuity,  ma.sses,  bequest  for 
when  invaUd,  76,  476. 

Persu;ision,  defined,  187,  197;  Con- 
gi-egational  defined,  376. 

Pews,  when  church  judicatory  may 
not  regulate  sittings,  229;  injunc- 
tion denied  recon.st ruction  and 
rearrangement,  290;  free,  when 
not  affected  by  sale  of  property, 
370;  vestry  may  assign,  569; 
owners  may  form  corporation, 
611;  society,  bj'  laws  may  provide 
for  assessment  of,  808;  distribut- 
ing, power  of  trustees,  822;  Uni- 
versalist  Church,  by  laws  relative 
to,  865;  historical  note,  446; 
assessment  for  exisenses,  447; 
changing,  injunction  refused,  447; 


iM)i:x 


it:;:  5 


church  uticd  for  {jcnonil  purposes, 
447;  distribution,  447;  disturbing 
possession,  448;  easement,  449; 
English  custom,  458;  execution, 
sale,  454;  forfeiture,  454;  incoi- 
poreal  hereditament,  455;  indem- 
nity for  loss,  455;  locking  pew, 
457;  loose  bench,  457;  Louisiana 
rule,  457;  mandamus,  457;  Massa- 
chusetts rule,  457;  new  building, 
458;  new  pew,  459;  parish  prop- 
erty. 4()();  ])(M-pctual  lease,  4(10; 
pew  holder's  corjioratc  rigiits,  4(10; 
posM'ssion,  mandamus,  ItiO;  ])rc- 
scription,  KK);  pn^sumption,  itil; 
real  estate,  401;  rent,  char- 
acter of  debt,  4G2;  rent,  when 
preferred  debt,  4()2;  ropaii-s,  4((J; 
Honian  Catholic,  4(V2;  sale  of 
l)roperly,  4()4;  sale,  4(14;  laxation, 
4lU;  termination  of  right,  K)5; 
title,  405;  title  transferable,  4(i»); 
trespass,  46t);  archbishop's  rela- 
tion to,  659;  sale  of  to  apply  on 
building  contract,  733;  i)ew  hold- 
ers' share  in  trust  for  sustained, 
841. 

Phel7)s  Mission,  could  not  be  con- 
solidated with  a  Presbyterian 
(  hurch,  484. 

Philadelphia,  Evangelical  Associa- 
tion, General  Conference,  meet- 
ing, 1891,  242,  246. 

Philadelphia  Episcopal  .Vcademy, 
property  exempt  from  taxation, 
555. 

Philadelphia  Orphan  ^V-sj-lum,  Prot- 
estant I^piscojial  Church,  j)i()p- 
crty  exempt  from  taxation.  'ti\(y 

Philadelphia  Society  for  Organizing 
Charit}',  entitled  to  bequest  for 
care  of  i)oor,  87. 

Philadelphia  Yearly  Meet  ing, 
Friends,  status  of,  2.56,  262;  de- 
clared to  be  a  corporate  body.  2(')3. 

Philippine  Islands,  status  of  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  677;  Sjjanish 
approjjriation  for  support  of 
church,  ()85. 

Philips  Academy  Divinity  School, 
bequest  sustained,  8.'57. 

Philomath  College,  rnitcnl  lirethren 
in  Christ,  note  on,  862. 

Pierre  Vniversity,  Presbyterian 
school,  a  sectarian  in.st  itut  ion, 
716. 


Pious  Uses,  defined,  467;  described, 
467;  Jews,  468;  land,  devLsed, 
right  of  possession,  468;  minis- 
terial land,  468;  minister's  sup- 
port, 468;  nu.ssionarii«,  468;  poor, 
469. 

Place  of  Worship,  defined,  718;  iis 
to  what  constitutes  tilace  of  wor- 
ship s(H'  items  unaer  Sectarian 
Instruction. 

Political  Differences,  in  local  so- 
ciety, when  not  to  affect  property 
rights,  704. 

Polyganu',  i)roliibited,  407;  a  crime, 
()23;  state  may  i)roJiibit,  (>48. 

Poor,  bequest  for  relief  of  sustained, 
71,  75,  469;  when  bequest  for 
void,  78:  charily  for,  84,  87; 
Lady  Ilewley's  charity  for,  85. 

Poor  and  Codly  Preachers,  defined, 
85. 

Poiic,  Roman  Catholics  admit  au- 
thority of,  97;  Protestants  deny 
authority  of,  98;  acknowleilge<l  as 
head  of  I'nited  Creek  Church, 
278;  no  civil  authority  in  Louisi- 
ana, ()73:  position  under  Inter- 
national Law,  t)77;  -Vlexander  \  1 
and  .Julius  II,  grant  of  churcli 
privileges  by,  685;  grant  to  Sjian- 
ish  sovereigns  of  control  of  church 
in  -Vmerica,  685,  ()87. 

Porto  Rico,  status  of  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church,  678;  .\merican  occu- 
pation, 685;  Spanish  approiiria- 
tion  for  support  of  church,  ().85. 

Poverty,  vow  of,  vali«l.  172. 

Prayer,  liasis  of  Christian  Science 
practice,  103;  form  of,  not  sc<'- 
tarian  instruction,  715. 

Prayers  for  tiie  Dead,  affirmative, 
470;  negative,  474;  Church  of 
England,  47*');  general,  47t);  per- 
petuity, 476;  religious  us<>,  477; 
superstitious  u.se,  477;  time  limit, 
be(|uest,  478;  transfer  tax,  479. 

Predestination,  note  on,  215. 

Presbyterian  Church,  fonn  of  gov- 
ernment, 25;  Associate  Reformetl 
Church,  merge<l  in,  2t»;  aristoerat- 
ical  in  character,  109;  organic  law, 
(leneral  .\s.>iembly,  115;  bound 
by  national  and  state  constitu- 
tion's, IKi;  Cieneral  .\ss«-nib!y. 
|)olitical  deliveranct-s,  131;  dechi- 
r.atioii  :iiid  lesiimonv.  nol.-d,  l.'U  : 


WM 


iM)i:x 


uuiiiii  \si(li  ( 'iiiiil)('il;m(I  Prcfiby- 
tcriuii  ("Imrcli  susliiiiicd,  HIi; 
union  will)  ('iiiiihcrland  l'r«'Mhy- 
lirian  ("liiircli,  191,  li>4;  mission 
til  Indians,  IJol ;  rule  ius  to  rail 
of  minister,  liT'.i]  Dunkirk  case, 
Ii77;  rule  as  to  solcrtioii  of  jiastor, 
'A\)'i\  board  of  fivction  fund,  -Uti; 
Now  Oilcans,  legacy  for  poor, 
sustained,  4()0;  historieal  sketeh, 
481;  description,  482;  (rovern- 
mont,  form  of,  482;  a,ssocialion 
with  Conpn-gational  churches, 
483;  Center  ('ollege,  Danville, 
Kentucky,  483;  confirejiation,  au- 
thority, 484;  consolidation,  48"); 
division  of  society,  apy)ortion- 
ment  of  ])roporty,  484;  division, 
liowors  of  presbytery,  485;  excom- 
munication by  General  Asseni- 
bl}^  486;  Free  Portuguese  Church, 
487;  Foreign  Missionary  Society, 
488;  General  Assembly,  S(juthei'n, 
488;  General  Assembly,  described. 
Old  School,  489;  General  Assem- 
bly, division,  effect  on  legacj',  489; 
General  Assembly,  organized,  490; 
General  Assembly,  status,  490; 
General  Assembly,  when  decisions 
binding  on  church,  490;  Illinois 
Orphans'  Home,  491;  Independ- 
ent Church  not  possible,  491; 
joint  ownership,  492;  local  so- 
ciety, status,  492;  Mercer  Home 
for  Disabled  Clergj-men  of  the 
Presbj'terian  faith,  493;  minister, 
character  of  office.  493;  minister, 
how  called,  494;  minister,  Pres- 
bytery's j)ow(>r  of  ap])ointment, 
495;  missionary  house  of  rest, 
496;  missions,  496;  Old  and  New 
School;  division  of  1838,  497;  Old 
School  Assemblv,  claims  bequest, 
498;  Old  School,  General  Assem- 
bly, jiolitical  deliverances,  498;  or- 
ganization. 499;  organization  and 
form  of  government,  499;  pastor, 
terminating  relation,  500;  Penn- 
sylvania, English  congregation. 
500;  jiolitical  deliverances,  no 
effect  on  local  property,  501 ; 
Presbytery,  membership,  502; 
Presbyter  J"  of  New  York,  powers, 
502;  Presbytery,  relation  to  sy- 
nod. 503;  ]M-opert\'.  how  h(>ld  and 
managefl,   503;   ])ublication   com- 


initte<-,  'A)\;  rulinu  elders,  elec- 
tion, synod's  p(nver  limited,  .501; 
Scotch  Presbyterian  Church,  .501; 
Scotland,  .50.5;  secession  of  1838, 
.505;  secession,  effect  on  |)a,strjral 
relation,  .507;  .session,  .508;  .s«-s- 
sion,  powers,  .509;  slavery  agita- 
tion, 510;  sovereignty,  not  in 
menibershin,  511;  synod  of  sc;r<rs- 
sion,  church,  512;  synod,  powers, 
513;  tru.stccs,  513;  imconstitu- 
tional  deliverance  on  political 
questions,  513;  AWstminster  Col- 
lege, 514;  in<lei)endenl  local 
government,  482;  early  a.s.sociation 
with  Congregat  ionah.st.s,  48^3; 
Foreign  Mi-ssionary  Society  in- 
corporated in  Pennsylvania,  488; 
right  of  separation,  705;  Pierre 
University,  South  Dakota,  a  .sec- 
tarian iastitution,  716;  election 
by  noncontributors,  invalid,  868. 

Presbyters,  Associate  R  e  f  o  r  m  ed 
Church,  defined.  25. 

Presbytery,  of  whom  compo.sed. 
25;  Cumberland,  organization  of, 
190;  jurisdiction  over  .sessions, 
192;  Ciunberland  Presbyterian 
Church,  representation  in  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  192;  Cumberland 
Presbyterian  Church,  how  con- 
stituted, 193;  illegal  exclusion  of 
members,  221.  223;  Buffalo,  de- 
poses pastor  of  Dunkirk  church. 
377;  stated  supply,  ai)pointment 
of,  396;  Presbyterian  Church  de- 
scribed, 481  ;  Presbyterian  (Church, 
power  to  divide  society.  486; 
Presbyterian  Church,  rehition  to 
call  of  minister.  494;  Presbyterian 
Chiu-ch.  of  whom  composed.  .502; 
Presbyterian  Church,  cannot  dis- 
solve corporation.  .502;  Presby- 
terian Church,  whether  sale  must 
be  ai)proved  by,  query.  .539; 
Reformed  Presbyterian  Church, 
Philadelphia,  suspends  relations 
to  (Jeneral  Synod.  .587. 

Presiding  Elder.  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  note  on,  347. 

Priest,  profession  his  property,  145, 
396;  may  remove  distui'ber  of 
meeting,  212;  Greek  Church,  how 
chosen,  279;  injunction  against 
exercising  fimctions  in  contraven- 
tion    of     bishop's     order,     291; 


i.\in:x 


!):;: 


excomnumication,  not  question 
for  civil  courts,  'iS7;  not  to  en- 
gage in  secular  enijiloynient,  399; 
right  to  rent  pews,  4()4;  intruder 
not  entitled  to  execute  bequest 
for  masses,  476;  deposed,  not 
entitled  to  occupy  property,  535; 
relation  to  l)ishop,  (559,  078; 
removal  by  l)ishop,  GGO;  no  claim 
against  bisliop  for  salary,  (jtil; 
action  against  foi'  slander,  ()7S; 
authority  limited,  when  liable  for 
assault,  ()79;  bishop  may  remove 
or  suspend,  (579;  maintaining 
order  at  meeting,  ()79;  when  not 
bishop's  agent,  (580;  obligation 
described,  (580;  when  not  i'(>moved 
without  notic<>,  (580;  no  action 
against  bishop  for  removal,  G81 ; 
when  not  liable  f(jr  slander,  (585; 
when  archbishop's  utterances  con- 
cerning constitute  slander,  727; 
genei-ally  (-hurch  treasurer,  736. 

Primitive  Bajjtist  Church,  de- 
scribed, 515. 

Primitive  Methodist  Church,  organ- 
ization and  form  of  government, 
51(5;  adherence  to  fundamental 
principles,  517;  division  of  prop- 
ertv,  limited.  517;  note  on,  633. 

I'rofa'nity,  defined,  519. 

Promissor}'  Note,  given  by  jjastor, 
when  no  action  lies  against  build- 
ing committee,  14;  bj'  trustees, 
when  valid,  14,  818;  ratified  by 
vestry  is  valid,  14;  given  by 
jjresiilent  and  secretary  of  tru.s- 
tees  without  authority,  invalid, 
14;  by  deacons,  when  void,  183; 
when  unincorporated  .society  not 
liable  on,  194;  by  vestry,  wh(>n 
society  liable,  570;  when  makers 
not  personally  liable,  (503;  when 
society  not  liable  on,  (507;  when 
eorjjoration  not  liable  on  note 
given  by  oflicer,  (511;  made  by 
oflicers  of  Roman  Cat  h  o  1  i  c 
Church,  when  not  binding  on 
corporation,  (57(5;  made  by  trus- 
tees of  Shakers,  .society  liable, 
action  on,  73(5,  739. 

Property,  liable  for  l)uilding  claims, 
etc.,  5;  trust  in,  tiMistees  may  not 
impair,  7;  minister's  right  to 
compen.sation  a  ])roi)erty  right, 
11;    when    no    riglit    agamst    the 


church,  12;  control  in  Bapti.st 
ihurch,  '47;  priest's  profe.s.sion  hi.s, 
145;  rights,  three  cla.«ses,  157; 
rights,  when  civil  courts  have 
exclusive  juri.sdiction,  157;  tide, 
when  religious  opinions  may  be 
subject  of  in(iuiry,  1(51;  inherent 
right  to  ac(iuire  and  liold,  173; 
division,  etTect,  Evangelical  A.sso- 
ciation,  245;  division,  effect,  249; 
transfer  from  Free  Bajjtisl  to 
Regular  Baptist  Cliureh  invalid, 
250;  adherents  of  particular  doc- 
trines may  not  lake  pntperty  over 
t<j  another  denomination,  250; 
diversion,  elTec^t,  Free  Church  of 
Scotland,  253;  secession,  minor- 
ity's right,  253;  when  title  not 
forfeited  by  removal  of  building, 
267;  diversion,  change  of  iloc- 
trine.  269;  diversion,  right  of 
minority,  271;  diversion,  who  en- 
titled to  temporalities,  274;  joint 
occui)ancy,  effect,  274;  Greek 
chur(;h,  diversion  restrained,  278; 
diversion,  injunction  against,  284; 
sale,  trustees  cannot  on  own  mo- 
tion in.stitute  proceedings  for, 
346;  sale,  question  cannot  be 
submitted  to  arbitrator,  34(5; 
changing  site  of  church  edifice, 
effect,  3(54;  secession,  effect,  365, 
370;  church,  belongs  to  corpora- 
tion; minister's  right  limited,  38S; 
Presbyterian  Church,  when  di- 
videcl  l>etween  adherents  of  old 
and  new  .school,  484;  tlivision  of 
and  distribution  between  factions, 
487;  corporation,  right  to  hold, 
611;  Roman  Catholic  Ciuirch, 
held  Ity  bishop,  (581 ;  schism,  effect 
on,  (593;  how  divided  after  sej)- 
aration.  (597;  separation,  which 
party  entitled  to  hold,  (597,  (59S; 
Shakers,  how  held,  725;  (^xemj)- 
tion.  New  llami)shire  rul(>,  79(5; 
church,  used  for  other  purpo.^es, 
when  not  taxable,  799;  trusle<'s 
cannot  distribute  among  mem- 
Ihms,  819;  how  held  by  unincor- 
porat(>(l  .society,  S4t5;  corjxtration, 
limitation  of  .•imomit,  how  <jues- 
tioii  (Ictermiiii'cl,  90.'>:  ab.-indoning 
doctrines,  effect,  ■521;  adverse 
po.s,s(>ssion,  521;  Ahuska,  effect  of 
transfer   fn»m    l{ussia   to   I'nitiMl 


936 


iM)i;\' 


States,  522;  dedication,  divorKion, 
r)22;  dodifation,  523;  dedication 
lo  rclip;ioiis  uses,  52)3;  denoiiiina- 
lional  use,  52)3;  diversion,  524; 
division  of  society,  527;  execu- 
tion, 52H;  gospel  and  schoijl  lots, 
529;  Illinois  rule,  520;  joint  >ise, 
529;  lay  control,  Pennsylvania 
rule,  5IU ;  limitation  of  amount, 
rifiht  to  excess,  531;  majority's 
right,  532;  member's  right,  ')',','.'>; 
member  unlaw  fullv  expelled,  right 
lo  be  heard,  533;  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  se])aration,  ef- 
fect on  title,  533;  minority's  right, 
534;  mob,  flestruction  by,  action 
for  damages,  534;  object  and  use, 
534;  parish,  Massachusetts  rule, 
534;  pastor's  salary,  land  may 
be  sold  to  pay,  534;  priest's  occu- 
pancy, 535;  puli)it,  cannot  be 
seized  on  execution,  535;  removal 
of  church  edifice,  535;  reversion, 
535;  reversion  and  discontinuance 
of  specified  use,  536;  sale,  537; 
sale  for  debts,  538;  sale  or  mort- 
gage, 539;  sale,  i-ein vesting  pro- 
ceeds, 539;  sale,  when  court  order 
not  necessarj',  540;  sewing  circle, 
funds,  541;  special  trust,  effect, 
541;  Svmday  school  building,  542; 
suspending  power  of  alienation, 
542;  surplus  on  sale,  542;  taxa- 
tion, 543;  title,  how  held,  543; 
title,  when  not  affected  by  exclu- 
sion of  society,  543;  trust,  lim- 
itation by  testator,  543;  trust<M's, 
general  rights,  544;  imincorjjor- 
ated  society,  544;  vestry  room, 
544;  unincorporated  society,  title, 
567;  cannot  be  transferred  to 
another  denomination,  5S4;  when 
de  facto  corporation  may  hold, 
604;  effect  of  change  of  doctrine, 
630;  title  following  division  of 
society,  G3(j;  test  of  right  to  con- 
trol, 642;  unincorjwratod  society, 
right  of,  644;  when  archbishop 
has  title  to,  659;  bishop's  title 
to,  663,  664;  lioman  Catholic 
Church,  independent  society,  can- 
not be  (compelled  to  transfer  prop- 
erty- to  archbishoj).  672;  Louisi- 
ana, church  wardens  legal  owners 
of,  673. 
Protestant,     denies     authority     of 


pope,  97;  minister  d«-firie<|,  :J96; 
.Augsburg  Confession,  545;  con- 
gregation, 546;  I'ink's  .\syluni, 
546;  Heidelberg  Catechi.sm,  540; 
vital  principle  oi,  547. 
I'roteslant  Kjjiscopal  f'hurch,  Sea- 
bury  first  American  bishop,  47; 
Domestic  and  Foreign  Mi.s,sionary 
Society,  bequest  to,  74;  monar- 
chical, 109;  institution  and  induc- 
tion, court  will  iKjt  take  judicial 
notice  of  meaning  of  terms,  152; 
rector,  .status  when  not  a  question 
for  civil  courts,  155;  vestry,  when 
civil  courts  will  not  interfere  with, 
157;  procedure  on  charges  against 
rector,  222;  parish,  definerl,  439; 
Baltimore  Church  Home  and 
Infirmary,  549;  bishop.  549;  C'en- 
tral  New  York  Diocese,  549; 
curate,  550;  described,  5.50;  Do- 
mestic and  Foreign  Missionary 
Society,  550;  elections,  rector's 
power,  551 ;  English  origin,  551 ; 
glebe  land,  sale,  551;  governing 
body,  551;  government  owner- 
ship disapproved,  552;  Criswold 
College,  552;  guild,  553;  Iowa 
diocese,  553;  Long  Island  Diocese, 
553;  missions,  553;  North  Caro- 
lina, legacy  apportionment,  554; 
Old  Ladies'  Home,  trust  for  sus- 
tained, 555;  Penn.sylvania  Conven- 
tion, 555;  Philadelphia  Episcopal 
Academy,  555;  Philadelphia  Or- 
phan A.sylum,  556;  property,  title 
of  general  denomination.  556; 
reader,  status,  556;  rector,  call, 
dissolving  relation,  556;  rector, 
cannot  be  excluded  from  prop- 
erty, 557;  rector,  title  of  local 
society,  557;  rector,  ca.sting  vote, 
558;  rector,  charges  against,  558; 
rector,  changing  diocese,  effect, 
559;  rector,  defined,  559;  rector, 
dissolving  relation.  560;  rector, 
election,  sufficiency,  561;  rector, 
exclusion  from  church,  5(>2;  rec- 
tor, exclusion,  when  unla^\"ful, 
562;  rector,  how  called,  563; 
rector,  legacy  for  support  sus- 
tained, 563;  rector,  right  to 
occupy  property,  563;  rector, 
tenure  of  office,  564;  sale,  legis- 
lative power,  564;  sale  of  church 
property,    565;    Trinity    Church, 


iNi)i;x 


'j:jT 


charter,  5fi5;  Trinity  Church, 
chiirtpr  superior,  'ido;  Trinity 
C'hurcli,  St.  Jolm's  ('Impel,  .")CiO; 
trust,  ronvcxiincf  to  l)isliop,  .'jliH; 
trustees,  cannot  ;icl  for  two 
societies,  fjlUi;  unincorporated  s<h 
ciety,  cannot  take  title  to  land, 
567;  vestry,  cannot  act  without 
ineetinfj;,  ')()7;  vestry,  casting 
vote,  567;  vestry,  actinp;  without 
formal  resolution,  5(58;  vestry, 
increasing,  568;  vestry,  meetings 
568;  vestry,  powers,  569;  vestry, 
promissory  notes,  570;  Virginia, 
early  church,  570;  Vii-ginia,  Edu- 
cation Society,  571;  wardens  and 
vestry,  status,  572;  W'arfield  Col- 
lege, 572;  ^Vestern  Xew  York 
Diocese,  572;  widows'  and  or- 
phans' fund,  572;  worship,  rec- 
tor's authoiity,  57;>;  estalilished 
church  in  lOngland,  592;  vestry, 
constitute  corporation,  615;  mem- 
bers cannot  vote  at  congrega- 
tional meeting,  869. 

Protestant  Episcopal  Education  So- 
ciety, Vu-ginia,  bequest  sustained, 
571. 

Providence  Hospital,  incorporaleil, 
property  how  held,  ()8:^. 

Psalm,  23d.  Sw  Twenty-third 
Psalm. 

Publication  Committee,  Presby- 
terian Church,  note  on,  504. 

Public  Teacher,  statas  in  Massa- 
chusetts, 11. 

l^iblic  Worship,  taxation  for,  when 
minister  caimot  recover  tax,  11; 
reading  Bible  makes  school  a 
place  of,  45;  place  of  includes 
chapel,  67;  becjuest  for  chapel 
sustained,  7'.i;  gift  for  jH-omotion 
of,  79;  place  of,  Christian  Science 
charter  refu.sed,  105;  a  function 
of  the  church,  107;  cliui-cli  a  jjlace 
of,  113;  lecture  and  Sunday  school 
roon),  a  jilace  of,  113;  church 
proper  i)lace  of,  116;  not  subject 
to  judicial  iiKiuiry,  166;  right  of 
congi-egat ion  to  contrt)!,  injunc- 
tion against  interfering  witli  right, 
287;  wlien  corporators  may  not 
regulate,  342;  when  pa.slor  may 
regulate,  379;  P  r  e  s  b  y  I  e  r  i  a  n 
Church,  session  iuxs  exclusive 
juiisdiclion  of  questions  relating 


to,  423;  Presbyterian  Church, 
ses-sion  to  regulate,  509;  dLslurl)- 
ers  may  be  removed,  .")ti9;  rector 
may  renulale,  573;  originally  sup- 
jxHted  by  towns,  591;  town 
required  to  i)rovide  place  of,  591; 
jieople  n'<|uired  tf)  attend,  591; 
society  may  regulate,  643;  not 
comi)uLsorv,  647,  649,  ()52;  min- 
ister to  regulate  and  preside  at, 
654;  jirie.st ,  may  maintain  order  at, 
679;  place  of,  u.>e  of  sch«><>lliou.-<e 
for  Sunday  schof>l,  not  a,  694; 
when  reading  Bible  in  school  do«'s 
not  constitute,  713;  prayer,  when 
does  not  make  schoolhou.se  a 
place  of  worshij),  715;  comijulsoiy 
payment  of  admi.-sion  fee  on 
Sunday  unlawful,  750;  Boston, 
inhabitants  not  taxable  for,  799; 
suj)port  bv  towns  in  Connecticut, 
8(X). 

Publi.shing  Hou.se,  MethodLst  Epi.s- 
copal  Church,  South,  property 
exempt  from  taxation,  'MV.). 

Pulpit,  when  cannot  Ix'  .seized  on 
execution,  535. 

Pvnitans,  described,  282. 

Q 

Quakers,  not  bound  to  accept 
office  of  church  warden,  123; 
ovei"seers  title  to  office,  how 
determined,  158;  aided  Se|)ara- 
tLst.s.  173. 

Quarterly  Conference,  Methodi.st 
Epi.sco|nd  Church  Hxes  minister's 
salary,  10;  Evangelical  .\.s.s(icia- 
tion,  241;  Methodist  E|)i.scopal 
Church,  of  whom  compo.sed,  347; 
I'nited  Brethren  in  Christ,  855, 
857. 

(Quieting  title,  when  action  for  may 
be  maintained,  15. 

Quorum,  dctined.  powers,  'MiS,  Ml; 
vestrv  meeting,  5()9;  rule  a.>;  to 
vestry,  819. 

Quo  Warranto,  trustees,  574;  ves- 
trymen, 574;  to  determine  valid- 
ity of  incorporation,  6(N):  i>n>i>cr 
remedy  to  determine  title  to 
ofhce  of  trustee,  S20;  to  del«Tmine 
right  of  parties  claiming  j>os.s«>s- 
sion  of  pro|H'rty.  iVi;  remedy  to 
determine    election    of    truht^vt*, 


*X\H 


INhllX 


428;  to  iiKiuirc  into  election  «»f 
trustees  of  I'lcshylcriim  (!ener;il 
Assembly  of  lS:iS,  507. 

R 

Railroiwl  (Jompuny  liahl(>  in  d.ini- 
ap;cs  for  disturhiiiK  reiifiious  serv- 
iees,  4. 

Rapp,  George,  leader  (jf  Harmony 
Society,  1G8. 

Reader,  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  status,  556. 

Rector,  dei)osition,  when  no  action 
for  damages,  15;  status,  when 
civil  courts  will  not  determin<', 
155;  charges  against,  procedure, 
222;  Virginia,  Legislature  enter- 
tains charges  against,  228;  may 
be  required  to  give  notice  of  elec- 
tion, 235;  authority  lus  presiding 
officer  at  elections,  237;  may  be 
required  to  join  in  notice  of 
special  election,  237,  312;  may 
be  requu'cd  to  recognize  election 
of  churchwarden,  240;  strildng 
names  from  parish  register,  in- 
junction denied,  285;  a  member  of 
the  corporation,  381;  cannot  be 
excluded  from  possession  and 
use  of  church  edifice,  381,  386; 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  au- 
thority at  elections,  551;  call, 
dissohang  relation,  556;  cannot 
be  excluded  from  property,  557, 
562,  564;  casting  vote,  558; 
charges  against,  trial,  558,  567; 
defined,  559;  dissolving  relation, 
560,  564;  when  may  not  resign, 
561;  how  called,  563;  tenure  of 
office,  564;  New  York  rule,  568; 
may  regulate  worship,  573;  Ro- 
man Catholic  Church,  ratifying 
act,  683. 

Referee,  may  be  appointed  to  con- 
duct special  election,  6,  237,  312. 

Reformation,  noted.  111. 

Reformed  Church,  description,  575: 
diversion  of  property,  576;  divi- 
sion of  society,  effect,  576;  legacy, 
limitation,  576;  succession  to 
Calvinist  Society,  576;  successor 
to  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  576; 
trust,  intention  of  testatrix,  577. 

Reformed  Dutch  Church,  origin  in 
America,  578;  history,  579;  classis 


of  1822,  5S0;  conHolidalion,  when 
vr)i(l,  580;  congregation,  right  to 
withdraw,  581;  <()ii.-i.';tory,  gen- 
eral power,  581;  division  of  so- 
ciety,  adverse  pos.s<\-s8ion,  581 ; 
division  of  societj-,  effect,  581; 
judicatories,  583;  minister,  devi- 
ation in  doctrine,  no  riglit  to  u.se 
I)ulpit,  .")84;  property,  transfer  to 
another  denomin.'ition  prohibiff'd, 
584;  society,  how  formed,  585; 
taxatifmof  j)arsonage,  .")85;  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  legacy  sustained, 
585;  tiTist,  when  deviation  in 
doctrine  not  objectionable,  .585; 
trust,  when  vahd,  586. 

Reformed  Dutch  Church  of  Amer- 
ica, name  changed  to  Reformed 
Church  of  America,  577. 

Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  di- 
vision of  .society,  majority's  right, 
587. 

Reformed  Presbyterians,  union  with 
Associate  Presbyterians  to  estab- 
lish Associate  Reformed  Church, 
25. 

Rehgion,  articles  of,  see  articles  of 
religion,  24;  Christian,  bequest 
for  support  of,  72;  bequest  for 
promotion  of,  78.  79;  religion  and 
pohtics  should  go  hand  in  hand, 
101;  advancement  of,  bequest 
sustained,  886,  887;  defined.  589; 
children,  education,  590;  church 
and  state,  590;  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  591;  duty  of 
state,  592;  English  toleration  acts, 
592;  freedom,  592;  Girard  Col- 
lege case,  593;  government  not  to 
teach,  595;  importance  to  society, 
595;  legislative  regulation,  595; 
Ohio,  595;  rational  piety,  596; 
restraining  interference,  596. 

Religions  of  all  Nations,  Robbins, 
quoted,  97. 

Religious,  defined.  77. 

Religious  Belief,  no  excuse  for 
neglecting  parental  duty,  597; 
basis  of  sect  or  denomination,  tj35; 
cannot  be  restrained,  647;  lim- 
itation on  exercise  of  right,  648; 
when  defense  to  parents  for 
failure  to  provide  medical  attend- 
ance for  children,  104;  Christian 
Science  charter  refused  in  Mis- 
souri, 104;  basis  of  church  fellow- 


iMn:.\ 


!•:;;» 


ship,  108;  not  to  be  restrained. 
G20;  when  indieated  hv  apparel, 
()2(j. 

llehgious  Body,  dcfinetl,  109. 

Religious  Corporations,  when  eon- 
soUdation  may  be  set  aside,  29;{; 
majority,  power  at  corporate 
meeting,  314;  when  cannot  arbi- 
trarily <'xpel  member,  321;  three 
Methodist  ICpiscopal  churches 
consohdated,  142,  339,  342;  rela- 
tion to  si)iritual  church,  502; 
New  York,  order  f(jr  sale  of 
jiroperty,  rule  not  appUcable  to 
foreign  cor[)oration,  o40;  New 
^'ork,  Shaker  Society,  not  in- 
cluded in,  722;  amending  charter, 
599;  assignment  for  creditors,  599; 
banking,  599;  l)usiness  block,  599; 
capacity  to  take  property,  how 
determined,  GOO;  changing  form 
of  government,  000;  charter,  (MX); 
consolidation,  600;  constitution 
and  by  laws  make  ctmtract,  601; 
contract,  excursion,  602;  corpor- 
ate acts,  602;  corporator's  right, 
how  ac(]uired  or  lost,  602;  debts, 
members  not  personally  liable, 
603;  debt  ratification,  603;  debt, 
treasurer's  loan,  603;  debts  reim- 
bursement, 1)04;  de  facto,  prop- 
erty rights,  604;  de  facto,  604; 
denominational  character,  604; 
dissohition,  effect,  605;  dissolu- 
tion, state  law  superior  to 
church  law,  605;  diversion  of 
trust,  605;  government,  ()05;  in- 
corporation, 606;  incorporation, 
collateral  inquiry,  60t};  incorpora- 
tion, validitv,  how  questioned. 
60();  liability  for  debt,  607;  Ua- 
bility  for  injuries  caused  l)v 
negligence  of  employee,  607;  lia- 
bility for  injuries  to  employee, 
(iOS;  majority,  when  action  bind- 
ing on  minority,  60S;  majority's 
right,  60S;  membei's,  60S;  mem- 
l)er,  expelled,  no  claim  for  dam- 
ages, 609;  member's  <'xpulsion, 
609;  member's  liability,  609; 
members,  when  mav  not  be  ex- 
cluded, 609;  Miciiigan  rule,  610; 
minors  as  members,  610;  new 
organization,  effect,  610;  New 
York  rul<>,  610;  ()bj<"cl  and  pur- 
pose,   610;    organization,    notice. 


610;  pew  owners,  611;  presump- 
lion.  611;  promissory  note,  (ill: 
pi-operty,  limitation,  611;  reli- 
gii)Us  connection,  ()12;  removal  to 
new  house.  «>12;  Roman  Catholic, 
charter,  612;  status,  613;  st.itus, 
as  compared  with  English  parson, 
613;  taxation,  613;  three  elements, 
(J13;  triL'^t(H',  614;  trusttn's,  pow- 
ers, 614;  trustees,  majority  must 
meet  and  act,  615;  unauthorized 
sale  of  property,  615;  who  con- 
stitute, 615;  Young  Men's  Chris- 
tian Association,  616;  Young 
\Vomen's  Christian  Association, 
616. 

Religious  Establishment,  ilefine<l, 
617. 

Religiou.s  Freedom,  when  civil 
courts  cannot  interfere  with  (lues- 
tions  relating  to  cliun-h  organ- 
ization, creed  and  discipline.  144; 
comment  on,  151,  152;  note  on. 
592;  American  rule,  61S;  charita- 
ble institutions,  61S;  civil  courts, 
limitation  of  power,  619;  civil 
courts,  619;  compulsory  church 
attendance,  619;  discrimination 
not  allowed,  620;  limitation,  620: 
Louisiana,  621;  Massachusetts, 
621;  memorials,  ))22;  minor  chil- 
dren, 622;  officer.  622;  Oregt)n. 
623;  Penn.sylvania,  623;  polyg- 
amy, 623;  .s(>ctarian  controversies. 
624;  United  States,  624;  \irgiiiia. 
625;  voluntary  basis.  ()25;  con- 
tinuing subscription  for  r-hurch 
j)Ui'j)ose  not  aflfected  by  suc- 
ce.s.sor's  change  of  religious  o])in- 
ions,  741;  not  affected  by  nninici- 
pal  ordinances  regulating  S.ib- 
bath  ob.'U'rvance,  76S. 

Religious  (iarb.  New  York,  ()26; 
I'enn.sylvania,  62(),  715. 

Religious  Principles,  defined,  627; 
limits  of  iiKjuiry,  627. 

Religious  Seminary,  reading  liible 
makes  school  a,  45. 

l^eligious  Services,  bequest  for.  77; 
in  (lerman  language,  bequest  for 
sustained,  7S;  becjuest  for  ser- 
mons. HO. 

Religious  Societies,  Illinois,  how  ac- 
tion brought,  IS;  New  York, 
triistft's  nuist  sue  in  corporate 
name.     IS;    ;iction     li\-     trustii-s 


!)■(() 


iMn:x 


judgment  ni;iy  he  for  roriioni- 
lion,  lit;  Tii.ay  chiiiip;!'  f>|)ini()ns,  :>1 ; 
uiiiy  exercise  jiii'isdictioii  nvei" 
ccniolories,  <)(),  (i;!;  ameiulinn 
charter  and  alteriiiK  terin.s  of 
chiirity,  84;  status  in  eivil  courls, 
141;  people  liavo  rijiht.  to  organ- 
ize, lol;  when  may  not  he 
consolidated,  2i)3;  eciuality  of 
members,  318;  when  eannot  Ix' 
consolidated  with  society  in  an- 
other denomination,  .Wo;  build- 
ing (committee,  ()29;  by  laws,  629; 
change  of  denominational  rela- 
tions, 630;  change  of  doctrine, 
effect,  630;  chapd-^,  630;  commit- 
tee, defense  in  legal  proceedings, 
631;  congregation  a  corporation, 
distinction,  631 ;  congregational, 
632;  congi-egational,  division,  ef- 
fect, 632;  connect ional  relatioas, 
633;  consolidation,  633;  constitu- 
tion, 634;  contract,  634;  convey- 
ance, presumption,  634;  debts, 
634;  debts,  when  subscribers  not 
liable  for,  634;(lefined,  635,  718; 
devise,  diversion,  63o;  devise. 
New  York  rule,  635;  dissolution, 
636;  diversion  of  property,  636; 
division,  elTcct  on  i)roperty,  636; 
division,  minority's  right,  636; 
doctrine  and  worship,  control, 
637;  freedom  of  organization,  637; 
Illinois  rule,  637;  incorporation, 
637;  incorporation,  certificate  seal 
637;  incorporation,  how  proved, 
637;  incorporation,  not  necessary, 
638;  independent,  diversion  of 
trust,  638;  individual  rights,  038; 
joint  incorporation,  638;  liability, 
638;  liability  of  members,  638; 
majority,  powers,  039;  Massachu- 
setts rule,  639;  meetings,  639; 
meeting,  how  called,  639;  name, 
639;  New  York  act  of  1813,  640; 
organization,  powers,  640;  jirop- 
eiiy,  conveyance  to  members, 
effect,  640;  property,  how  to  be 
used,  641;  quorum,  641;  reincor- 
poration, identity,  641;  rules  of 
order,  641 ;  school  moneys,  sharing 
in,  641;  secession,  642;  self- 
government,  642;  separation,  ef- 
fect, 642;  separation  or  inde- 
pendence, when  impossible,  642; 
services,    socictj'    may    regulate 


admis.sionH  ami  conduct,  642;  hu1>- 
scriber's  right  1o  jjrevent  diver- 
sion, 043;  threefold  .-uspect,  (■)4;>; 
two  societies,  one  tiiiiiister,  (V13; 
unincorporated,  htalus,  M4;  union 
with  another  drriomination,  645; 
war  claim,  <>45;  who  constitute, 
015;  withdrawal  from  synod, 
effect,  ()45. 

Religi(jus  Toleration,  granted  by 
Russia,  31K);  vital  principle  of 
Protestantism,  547;  llnglish  act, 
effect  on  trusts,  592;  Connecticut, 
647;  described,  647;  Mormons, 
648;  nmnicipal  ordinance,  048; 
parental  duty,  (>49;  Pennsylvania. 
649;  Protestantism,  6.50;  denied 
in  INIexico,  674;  asserted  in  Texas, 
674. 

Religious  Worsliip,  decorum  re- 
quired, 202;  removing  disturber, 
212;  officers  maj'  preser\-e  order, 
212;  basis  of  public  recognition, 
651;  camp  meeting,  651;  defined, 
652;  duty  of  person  attending, 
652;  majority  may  regulate,  65.3; 
musical  instruction;  singing,  653; 
orphan  asylum,  053;  place  of, 
when  exempt  from  taxation,  653; 
preserving  order,  653;  meetings, 
654;  regidations,  when  illegal, 
654;  removing  dLsturbers,  654; 
right  of  choice,  6.55;  Sunday 
school,  when  not  excluded,  65.5; 
taxes,  apportiomnent,  655;  usage 
of  congregation,  6.55;  beating 
drum,  when  not  an  act  of,  tV21, 
091;  Nebraska,  what  constitutes, 
714;  when  miscellaneous  exercLses 
constitute,  740,  778;  trustees  can- 
not control  services,  820;  when 
bequest  for  religious  ser\'ices  in- 
vaUd,  838. 

Replevin,  to  recover  seal,  15. 

Reversion,  notes  on,  .535,  .530. 

Rhode  Island  Y(nu-ly  Meeting, 
Friends,  oldest  in  ^^juerica,  256. 

Rigdon,  Sidne}',  Mormon  Councilor, 
note  on,  414. 

Riot,  distm-bing  religious  meeting, 
213. 

Robbins,  "Religions  of  all  Na- 
tions," 97. 

Roberts,  Rev.  William,  superin- 
tendent of  Methodist  mission  in 
Oregon,  352. 


INDEX 


*Ml 


Robinson,  John,  foundfr  of  Indr- 
pendentH,  282. 

Roman  Catholic  Church,  bishop, 
office  not  a  corporation,  47;  cem- 
etery, rcf^ulutinK  interments,  64: 
archbishop  taking  title  to  burial 
pjound.  59;  chay)cl  in  Ireland, 
Massachusetts  bequest  for,  sus- 
tained, 78;  archbishoj)  may  direct 
use  of  bequest,  SO;  canons,  when 
subordinate  to  state  law,  110; 
civil  rights  and  powers,  court 
will  not  take  judicial  notice  of, 
152;  tariff  prescribed  by  bishop 
cannot  be  enforced,  102;  exer- 
cising coordinate  spiritual  and 
temporal  i)ower,  efTect,  229;  se- 
cret investigations,  230;  elect ioas, 
qualifications  of  voters  in  special 
case,  238;  comparison  with  United 
Greek  Churcli,  278;  bishop's  con- 
trol of  priest,  291;  mission  to 
Indians,  351;  excommunicated 
priest  cannot  be  continued  in 
office,  380;  excommunication  of 
priest,  civil  courts  no  jurisdiction 
over,  387;  duty  to  support  priests, 
399;  parish,  440;  rule  as  to  pews, 
463;  priest's  right  to  rent  jx-ws, 
464;  deposed,  not  entitled  to 
occupy  property,  535;  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  charter,  note 
on,  612;  relation  to  Illinois  In- 
dustrial School  for  Girls,  710; 
lease  of  basement  of  church  for 
pubhc  school,  sustained,  712;  sub- 
scription, when  it  becom(>s  proji- 
erty  of  congregation,  instead  of 
bishop,  737,  740;  trusts  for  book 
teaching  doctrines  of  the  church, 
invahd,  790;  trustees,  how  chosen, 
822;  archbishop,  may  appoint 
directors  of  corporation,  658; 
archbishop,  title  to  property,  659; 
archbishop,  title  to  jiroperty, 
pews,  (559;  bishoj)  and  pi'icst, 
relations,  659;  bishoi),  authority, 
660;  bishoji's  control  over  priest, 
660;  bishop,  liability  on  contracts, 
661;  bishop,  no  contract  n-lation 
with  local  church,  661;  bislioi) 
not  liable  for  priest's  salary,  tiOl ; 
bishop's  powers,  661 ;  bishop,  nla- 
tion  to  corporation,  Louisiana 
Church  of  St.  Ixniis,  (361 ;  bishop's 
supervision,  t)()2;  bishop's  title  to 


lajid — cemetery,  663;  bishop's 
title  to  pronerty,  t)(>3;  bishop, 
when  not  Uable  in  damages,  666; 
burial  ground,  6(i();  California 
missions,  666;  Catholic  Knights 
of  Wisconsin,  (i67;  Catholic,  rela- 
tion how  determined,  (M)7;  cem- 
etery, exclusion  of  non-Cat  hoUcs, 
667;  cemeterv,  suicide  not  on- 
thled  to  burial,  668;  congregation, 
relation  to  general  church,  (j69; 
corporate  rights,  669;  English 
tolcratioUj  (j(j9;  fraternal  Ix-nefi- 
ciar>-  society,  670;  independent 
corporation,  powers,  670;  indi^ 
pendent  society,  St.  Antliony 
Church,  672;  Jesuit  Grder,  ()72; 
Ladies'  Club.  672;  Ixjuisiana  cor- 
poral ion,  |M)wers  of  local  officers, 
673;  Mexico,  674;  Mexico  an»i 
Texas,  (j74;  minority's  riglit,  675; 
Nebra-^ka,  status  of  church,  (i75; 
New  York,  incorjjoration,  effect, 
675;  orphan  iu-^ylum,  not  a  com- 
mon school,  ()76;  parish  register, 
676;  PeniL-iylvania,  <'arly  tolera- 
tion, 67();  Philil)i)ine  Islands,  677; 
pope's  position  under  Interna- 
tional Law,  (i77;  I'orto  Hico,  (i7N; 
priest,  67S;  priest,  action  against 
for  slander,  (578;  priest's  author- 
ity, 679;  priest,  nishop's  j)ower 
of  removal,  ()79;  priest,  exjiulsion, 
()79;  priest,  maintaining  order  at 
meetings,  (i79;  i)nest,  power  to 
preserve  ordcT  in  church  .'Services, 
(380;  pri(>st,  not  bisho|)'s  agent, 
(380;  priest,  obligation,  6.S0;  j)ri(»st, 
removal  without  notice,  (>S0; 
priest's  right  of  action  jigainst 
oi.shop,  (3S1;  priest,  salary,  (381; 
property,  how  held,  ()S1 ;  projHTty 
right,  (582;  Providence  Hospital. 
(383;  rector,  ratifying  acts,  (IS.'J; 
St.  .Anne's  (^atholic  .\ post olic  and 
Roman  Church,  Detroit,  Mi<hi- 
g.an,  684;  .sexton's  salary,  (3,S4; 
Sisters  of  St .  Francis,  (5S4,  slandir, 
e.xcommunicalion,  tiS.5;  Spanisli 
.America,  685;  Spanish  America, 
limitation  of  Papal  authority, 
('i.S(>;  Spanish  sovereignty,  (3,S7; 
Spanish  supremacy  m  coloni«'s, 
(1S7;  students,  voting  n*sidenee, 
(ISS;  Tex:us,  688;  unincorix>rat»«<l 
church,     trust     .•«ustain«'d,     ('>S8; 


!M2 


iM)i:x 


Woodstock  ('ollc>;(',  iMuryhiiKi, 
689;  accepts  uulhority  of  pope, 
97;  members  of  (ierman  society, 
270;  inmates  of  charital)l(>  institu- 
tions, entitled  to  ministrations  of 
clergymen  of  same  faitli,  619; 
status,  how  (Ictcniiincd,  667;  wit- 
ness, oath  on  Holy  KvanKclists, 
method,  904;  Archbishop  of 
Cashel  not  a  corporation,  47. 

Ruling  Elders,  when  cannot  main- 
tain action,  18;  Presbyterian 
Church,  how  chosen,  2r);  powers, 
499;  additional,  when  election  in- 
vahd,  504. 

Russia,  Oreek  churches  in,  278; 
Synod  of,  how  composed,  278; 
religious  toleration,  306;  property 
of  Lutherans,  how  affected  by 
cession  to  United  States,  298; 
Alaska,  toleration  of  Lutherans 
in,  306. 

Ryan,  P.  J.,  Archbishop,  bequest, 
moral  trust,  sustained,  825. 


Sacrament,  Church  of  England,  who 
may  take,  123. 

St.  Anne's  Catholic  and  Roman 
Church,  Detroit,  Michigan,  note 
on,  684. 

St.  Benedict,  founder  of  Order  of 
St.  Benedict,  172. 

St.  Benedict,  Order  of,  see  Order  of 
St.  Benedict. 

St.  John's  Chapel  (Trinity  Church), 
closed,  action  of  vestry  sustained, 
141,  566. 

St.  Mary's  Boys'  Orphan  Asylum, 
Rochester,  status  under  New 
York  constitution  and  statutes, 
708. 

St.  Matthew's  Church,  New  York, 
formed  in  part  from  Trinity 
Church,  305. 

Salary,  minister,  action  for,  8;  min- 
ister, when  previous  immorality 
no  defense,  9;  minister,  action  for. 
call  must  have  been  accepted,  9; 
subscriptions,  society  must  use 
due  diligence  to  collect,  10; 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
minister,  no  contract  relation  as 
to  salary,  10;  minister,  Massa- 
chusetts, constitutional  limitation 


on  action  for,  10;  minister,  Meth- 
odist Ei)i!Sco|)al  ("hiirch,  how  de- 
ficiency collected,  10;  of  minister, 
when  town  liable  for,  12;  of 
minister,  when  only  voluntarj' 
contribution,  12;  of  minister,  ex 
parte  dismission  no  bar  to  a<;tion 
for  salary,  12;  fixed  by  parish 
committee,  when  conclusive,  12; 
minister  suspended  not  entitlwJ 
to,  12;  mini.ster,  if  no  contract, 
entitled  to  a  just  compensation, 
13"  members  not  individually 
liable  for,  13. 

Sale,  church  property,  notes  on, 
537. 

Salem,  Oregon,  Indian  mission  at, 
351. 

Salvation  Army,  disturbing  meeting 
of,  213;  described,  690;  devise 
sustained,  690;  municipal  ordi- 
nance, Kansas,  691;  municipal 
ordinance,  Michigan,  691;  mu- 
nicipal ordinance.  New  York,  691 ; 
municipal  ordinance,  Pennsyl- 
vania, 691. 

Sanhedrin,  custom  as  to  courts  on 
the  Sabbath,  758. 

Schism,  effect  on  property  rights, 
145;  when  not  subject  of  judicial 
inquiry,  162;  in  ^lennonite  so- 
cieties, 329;  controversy  over 
election  of  trustees  does  not 
constitute,  428;  Presbyterian 
Chiu-ch,  Old  School  and  New 
School  formed,  497;  effect  on 
property  rights,  642,  700;  de- 
fined, 693;  effect  on  property 
rights,  693;  in  Unitarian  societv, 
effect,  847. 

Schoolhouse,  other  use,  694;  leasing 
basement  of  church  for,  sus- 
tained, 712;  when  religious  exer- 
cises do  not  make  it  a  house  of 
worship,  713;  prayer  in,  when 
does  not  make  house  a  place  of 
worsliip,  716;  lease  of  parochial 
school  building  for,  sustained, 
716. 

Schools,  foundation  and  purpose, 
44;  morality  may  be  taught  in,  44. 

Science  and  Health,  Christian  Sci- 
ence text  book,  quoted,  105. 

Scotch  Presbyterians,  originated 
Associate  Reformed  Church.  25; 
General  Assembly  status  of,  230, 


INDKX 


:ti;: 


inslrurncntal     iiiusif     prohibited, 

505. 
Scotland,    propagating    Church    of 

England,  doctrines  in,  88;  Kirk 

established  chunh  of,  229;  note 

on  Presbj'terian  ("hurch,  505. 
Scriptures.     See  Hible.     Not  to  be 

interpreted  by  government,  59;i. 
Seabury,   Samuel,    first    Protestant 

Episcopal  bishop  in  America.  47, 

549. 
Seal,    treasurer,    custodian    of,    15; 

when  replevin  not   maintainable 

Secession,  eflfect  on  i)roperty  rights, 
245;  when  adhering  minoritj-  may 
control  property,  253;  ejectment 
against  scceders,  307;  when  se- 
ceders  forfeit  right  of  property, 
365,  366,  427 ;  Presbyterian 
Church,  in  local  societv,  effect, 
508;  notes  on,  540;  effect,  576, 
582;  abandonment,  when  demand 
effective,  694;  changing  denom- 
inational relations,  694;  Congre- 
gational, 694;  consent,  when 
necessary,  696;  diversion,  696; 
divi-sion  of  propertj',  696;  effect, 
697;  effect  on  property  rights, 
697;  forfeiting  church  property, 
699;  forfeiting  property  rights, 
7(K);  injunction,  700;  Lutherans, 
700;  majority's  right,  701;  minor- 
ity's right,  702;  political  differ- 
ences, 704;  Presbyterian  Church, 
705;  proof  necessar\',  705;  right 
of,  705;  Roman  Catholic,  706; 
(emnorary  withdrawal,  70();  trust 
fund,  706;  trustees,  seceding,  706; 
United  Brethren,  706. 

Sect,  defined,  197,  714;  based  on 
religious  behef,  635. 

Sectarian  Institution,  general  note, 
70S. 

Sectarian  Instruction,  Hible  not  a 
sectarian  book,  42,  45;  govern- 
ment not  to  teach  religion,  595; 
Illinois  Industrial  School  for 
Cirls,  710;  Illinois.  712;  Iowa, 
713;  Kansas.  71:5;  Ma.<sa(Iui.setts, 
713;  meanin'g.  how  determinetl, 
714;  Nebraska.  714;  Ohio,  714; 
Pennsylvania,  715;  prayer,  715: 
South  Dakota,  716;  taxpayers 
presumption  of  consent,  716; 
Texa-s,  717;  Wisconsin,  71S. 


Separatists,  described,  173;  aidisl 
by  (Quakers,  173;  suit  against, 
partition  denietl,  174. 

Sermon,  bequt^t  for  on  .Ascension 
Day,  80. 

Se.s.sion,  when  members  not  en- 
titled to  maintain  action,  18; 
Associate  ReforuK'd  Church,  25; 
juri.sdiction  of  Presbyter^-,  192; 
( "umberlaiid  P  r  e  s  by  t  e  r  i  a  n 
Church,  powers,  193;  (\mib«'rlaii(l 
Presbyterian  Church,  relation  lu 
congregation,  194;  of  whom  com- 
po.sed,  194;  Presbyterian  Church, 
exclusive  jurisdiction  of  f|ue:5tion.s 
relating  to  worship,  422;  IVesby- 
terian  Church  de.scribetl,  4S1,  493; 
Presbyterian  Church,  jjowers  con- 
sidered, 493;  Presbyterian 
Church,  membership  and  powers, 
509. 

Seventh  Day,  ob-servance  ;\.s  Sab- 
bath, no  excuse  for  violating 
Sunday  Law,  7S1. 

Sewing  Circle,  funds  belong  to 
church,  117,  541. 

Shakers,  deacon.s  may  maintain 
action  for  tresp:uss,  16;  note  on, 
80;  noted,  175;  comnmnity  of 
interest,  no  action  for  i>ersonal 
services,  719;  competency  !i.s  wit- 
nesses, 720;  c(jvenant,  720;  dea- 
cons, actions  by,  721;  expulsion, 
effect,  721;  M:us,sachusetts,  722; 
New  York,  722;  |)artition  or 
withdrawal  of  i)roi)erly,  not  j)er- 
mitted,  724;  property,  how  held, 
725;  trast(H>s,  promi.ssory  note, 
726. 

Shaw's  Reports  of  Cjtses  in  the 
Court  of  Sessions,  cited.  199. 

Simi)S()n,  Matthew,  Bishop,  arbi- 
trator in  John  Stn-et  Church 
matter,  346. 

Singing.     See  Music. 

Singing  School,  not  jM^miitl^Hl  in 
Campbellile  Church,  52. 

Sinsinawa  Mound  College,  note  on, 
664. 

Sisters  of  St.  Francis,  note  on,  6S4. 

Slander,  statement  by  prij-st,  when. 
675);  when  priest  not  liable,  (VS.'); 
archbi.shop's  criticism  of  priest, 
727;  minister,  727;  privilegeil 
.statements,  ciiurch  trial,  727. 

Sl.'ivf'ry.  agitation  concerning.  elTect 


•Ml 


i\i»i:\ 


on    Mrlhodist    llpiscopal  Cliiircli, 
;{o9;  l'r<'sl)yl(Tiiiii  ('hiirtli,  a>iit;i- 

uicl  in  siii)i)rcssiiiK  sustained,  SSS. 

Smith,  Joseph,  1st,  founder  and 
head  of  Alornion  Chur(;h,  409; 
death  of,  413. 

Smith,  Jos«'ph,  2d,  anointed  head 
of  Mormon  ("hurch,  414. 

Society,  must  use  flue  diligenee  to 
collect  subserij)tions  for  minis- 
ter's sahu'v,  10;  may  maintain 
action  to  reform  deed  and  correct 
mistake,  15;  church,  distinct  from 
corporation,  107,  112. 

Society  for  the  l'ropa}j;ation  of  the 
Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,  Ver- 
mont, grant  of  society's  property 
void,  70. 

Society  of  Jesus,  described,  672. 

South  Carolina,  Statute  of  EUza- 
beth,  not  adopted  in,  81. 

South  New  Market  Methodist  Sem- 
inary, entitled  to  legacy,  <S81. 

Spain,  King,  supreme  patron  of 
Roman  Catholic  Church  in  Amer- 
ica, 685;  control  of  church  in 
Spanish  America,  086. 

Specific  Performance,  action  on  con- 
tract for  sale  of  church  property, 
16. 

Spelman,  Sir  Henry,  quoted,  He- 
brew courts  on  the  Sabbath,  758. 

Spiritual  and  Philosophical  Temple, 
division,  minority's  right,  728. 

Spiritualists,  camp  grounds,  729; 
devise  rejected.  729;  trust  sus- 
tained, 729;  unincorporated  so- 
ciety, cannot  take  bequest,  7.30. 

Starkie  on  Evidence,  quoted,  com- 
pel enc}'  of  witness,  901. 

State,  not  bomid  by  decisions  of 
ecclesiastical  courts,  230;  separa- 
tion from  church,  326;  relation 
to  church.  590;  duty  relating  to 
religion,  592;  recognition  of  re- 
ligious worshij).  651;  Christian 
Sabbath  a  civil  institution,  766. 

Stated  Attendants,  defined,  872; 
rule  applied  to  Wesleyan  Method- 
ist, 875. 

Statedly  Officiates,  meaning  of,  398. 

Stated  Supply,  selection  and  super- 
vision of,  396. 

State  Law,  superior  to  church  dis- 
cij^line,  110. 


Statute  of  Limilutions,  a{jph<;H  lo 
mini.sler's  chiirn  for  .scrvHtes,  13. 

S  I  e  w  a  r  d  h,  Meliiodist  KjjLscojjul 
Church,  functions,  34S. 

Story,  Joseph,  Judge,  comment  on 
Ciirard  will,  594. 

Strong's  Relat if ms  f)f  Civil  Law  to 
Church  Pf)lity,  fjuoted,  663. 

Subscription,  ffjr  minister's  salary, 
society  must  u.se  due  fiiligence  tfj 
collect,  10;  building  committee, 
action  b}',  731;  cfjndition  ac- 
ceptetl,  731;  condition,  variation, 
732;  conflition,  sjiecified  amount 
to  be  rai.sed,  733;  con.sideratif)n, 
733;  defective  incorporatif)n, 
when  a  defense,  733;  e.xLsting 
debt,  733;  lial)ility  is  .several,  734; 
mutuality,  734;  pei-formance  by 
society,  735;  i)fTpetual  liabiUty, 
736;  promi.ssf^ry  nf)te,  736;  revt>- 
cation,  737;  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  special  purpose,  737; 
si)ecial  agreement,  738;  subscrib- 
er's death,  effect,  738;  sub- 
scriber's intention  :us  to  object, 
738;  subscription  note,  vahdity, 
739;  Sunday,  739;  Sunday  schot)l, 
739;  title  to  fund,  740;  unincor- 
jif)rated  society,  740;  withdrawal 
from  society,  effect,  741. 

Suffrage,  Right  of,  limited  to  church 
members,  591. 

Suicide,  not  entitled  to  burial  in 
Catholic  cemetery,  668. 

Summarj-  Conviction,  disturbing  re- 
ligious meeting,  214. 

Summary  Proceefling.  to  recover 
property  occui)ietl  by  deposed 
priest,  535. 

Sunday,  worldly  business,  compul- 
sorj-  admission  fee  to  camp  meet- 
ing, 55;  observance,  when  mu- 
nicipal ordinance  invalid,  t)20; 
chiu-ch  subscription  on,  when 
vahd,  739;  agent's  appointment, 
745;  agent's  unlawful  acceptance, 
745;  amusements,  745;  arbitra- 
tion, award,  746;  assignment  for 
creditors,  746;  attachment,  746; 
attorney's  clerk,  extra  compensa- 
tion, 747;  banker,  747;  bank 
paper,  747;  balloon  ascension, 
747;  barber,  747;  baseball,  749; 
bill,  acceptance,  749;  bill  of  ex- 
change;   indorsement    void.    750; 


INDEX 


I»45 


bill  of  sale,  750;  bond,  7")(); 
business,  750;  butcher,  750;  camp 
meeting,  charge  for  admission, 
750;  canal  lock  keeper,  751;  char- 
itable institution,  resolution,  751; 
chattel  mortgage,  751;  church, 
resolution  to  employ  minister, 
751;  cigars,  752;  commercial 
paper,  752;  common  carrier,  753; 
contract,  753;  conversion,  driving 
horse  beyond  contract  limit,  758; 
courts,  758;  courts.  Ancient  He- 
brew custom,  758;  courts,  charg- 
ing jmy,  758;  courts,  early  (  hris- 
tian  custom,  759;  courts.  New 
York  ('ity  magistrates,  759;  deed, 
759;  defined,  760;  demurrage,  7G0; 
disorderly  conduct,  760;  em- 
ployer and  employee,  761 ;  execu- 
tion, 761;  food,  761;  foreclosure 
sale,  761;  games,  7(>2;  gaming, 
dice,  762;  habejus  corpus,  762; 
ice  cream,  762;  innnoderate  djiv- 
ing,  762;  injuries,  action  for 
damages,  762;  insurance,  762;  in- 
toxicating liquor,  liV.i;  Jews,  763; 
justices  extra  compensation,  764; 
laborer,  hiring,  764;  lease,  764; 
legal  proceedings,  764;  legislative 
l)owers,  7()5;  levy,  768;  loan,  76S; 
mail  carrier,  768;  marriagf^,  768; 
meat  market,  768;  moving  pic- 
tures, 7(')8;  munir'ii)al  orrlinance, 
768;  necessity,  7()9;  newspapers, 
771;  object,  772;  onmibus,  772; 
on(>  ofTense  only,  772;  oixlinary 
calling,  773;  paj^ment  on  debt, 
773;  physician  s  prescrijjtion,  773; 
plaintiff's  violation  of  law,  when 
no  defense,  773;  preserving  prof)- 
erty,  773;  pi'ocess,  771;  promis- 
.sory  note,  774;  redemption  from 
sheriff's  sale,  777;  riligious  serv- 
ices, 778;  rescission  of  contract, 
778;  sale,  778;  sal(\sman,  services 
on  Sumlay,  780;  saloon,  781 ; 
s.aloon  closing,  niand;unus,  781 ; 
si'arch-warraiit,  781;  sea-weed, 
781;  se(unity  for  good  behavior, 
781;  seventh  day  observance,  781 ; 
slot  machine,  781;  social  club, 
treiiMurer  receiving  money,  782; 
Hoda  water.  7S2;  stage  coach,  782; 
statute,  const  it  111  ion.'ii,  782;  stat- 
ute of  limitations,  783;  statute, 
unconstitiilioiial,      783;     st.Mlnte, 


when  retrosi)ec»ive,  7S3;  sub- 
scriptions on  Sunday,  783;  sunset, 
784;  surety  contract,  7s4;  tel- 
ephone, 784;  lipi»ling  house,  78-1; 
tort,  784;  traveling,  7Sl;  trespass, 
adjusting  damages,  7S7;  trust, 
declaration.  7S7;  vaudeville,  787; 
violation,  remedy  for,  ~H7;  wju- 
rant,  787;  warrant  of  attornev, 
788;  will,  788. 

Sunday  School,  bequest  sustained, 
71;  library,  bequest  for,  79;  b(>- 
(|U(>st  in  aid  of,  81  ;  befpiest  f(tr, 
siistained,  89;  C'hri.stian  (luinh, 
flourishing  condition  of.  94;  Chris- 
tian Seicnce,  liability  of  treasurer, 
1(H;  room  a  place  of  worship,  113; 
Christmas  festival,  not  a  meeting 
for  religious  worship,  201 ;  dis- 
turbing  meeting  of,  214;  certain 
books  prescribed  by  Lutherans 
for  use  in,  29S;  building,  fund  for 
belongs  to  ehuicli,  542,  739;  not 
a  place  of  religious  wor.ship,  6.55; 
when  schoolhou.se  cannot  be  use<l 
for,  (i94;  when  u.m"  of  school- 
hou.se  for  does  not  make  it  a 
place  of  public  worship,  ()9I; 
relation  to  church,  789;  treasurer, 
when  res])onsible  to  ])arer)l  s(>- 
ciely,  789;  building,  when  exempt 
from  taxation,  79S;  when  fimd 
rai.sed  for  belongs  to  church,  S03; 
gift  of  fund  for  Christmas  pres- 
ents, invalid,  827;  gift  of  fund 
for  library,  invalid,  828;  bequest 
sustained,  888. 

Superstitious  U.se,  ma.«s«,  not  a,  313; 
gift  for  masses  sustained,  473; 
wlK>n  bcfiuest  for  ma.'^ses  invalid, 
177;  existence  noted,  790;  origin, 
790;  Roman  Catholic  jjublica- 
tions,  790;  Sh.akers.  791. 

Susp(>nsion  of  Tower  of  .Mienalion, 
note  on.  512. 

Swedenborgians,  be(|Ue«.l.  rr'je«'te(l, 
792;  l>e(|uest  sustained,  792. 

Synod,  .\.<sociate  Reformed  Church. 
25;  liow  constituted.  25;  officers 
of,  2();  procedure,  26;  CiimlM-r- 
l.ind  I'resbyteri.in  ('liureh,  how 
constituted,  194;  when  derisions 
not  conclusive,  226;  Cerman  He- 
formeil  Church,  273;  various 
l/iilheran  .synods  not«><i,  2'.J7,  :{07; 
.Norwegian  l!v.ingelic.il   F,iit|ieran 


j»4(; 


INDEX 


('hunh,  i'if);  P  r  o  s  b  y  t  o  r  i  ii  n 
Church  dcscrilx'd,  481;  Rcformorl 
Dutch  Church,  oTO.  oS;};  Re- 
formed I'reshyterian  Church,  587. 

Synod  ol  liulTiilo,  Lutherans,  rule 
JUS  to  confe.s.«ion  of  sins,  300. 

Synod  of  Dort,  denounces  Lutheran 
tenets,  304. 

Synod  of  New  ^'ork,  A.s.'^ociate 
Reformed  Church,  25;  composi- 
tion and  juris(Hction,  26. 

Synod  of  Ohio,  Lutherans,  rule  ius 
to  confessioTi  of  sins,  300. 

SjTiod  of  Ru.ssia,  of  whom  com- 
posed, 278. 

Synods  of  the  \\'o,st.  Associate  R(v 
formed  Church,  25. 


Taxation,  for  public  worship,  when 
minister  cannot  recover  tax,  11; 
camp  meetin}?  property,  55;  when 
minister  exempt,  399;  minor,  in 
what  parish  taxed,  438;  yiarishes, 
440;  pews,  464;  legacy  for  nuisses, 
when  subject  to  transfer  tax,  479; 
when  projierty  exempt,  .543;  par- 
.sonagc,  when  subject  to,  585;  for 
support  of  ministers,  591;  prop- 
erty liable  to  assessment  for  local 
improvements,  613;  Young  iMcti's 
Christian  Association,  not  a  re- 
ligious corporation,  616;  Young 
Women's  Christian  j^ociation, 
exempt  from  inheritance  tax,  61(); 
plaice  of  worship,  exemption,  653; 
when  cemetery  land  suliject  to, 
666;  Roman  Catholic  Church  in 
Mexico,  supported  by,  674;  mem- 
bers of  unincorporated  society 
maj'  be  exemjjted  from  assessment 
for  support  of  parish  church,  S44; 
American  Sunday  School  Union, 
793;  camp  meeting  a.*.sociations, 
793;  cemetery,  793;  corporate 
securities,  794;  dissenters,  794; 
Georgia  rule,  794;  Illinois  rule, 
794;  land  adjacent  to  building, 
794;  liquor  tax  law,  795;  masses, 
795;  member,  exemption,  795; 
member,  liability,  795;  membei-s, 
support  of  church,  795;  member, 
when  liability  arises,  795;  minis- 
ters, 796;  see  Minist»»rs,  Taxation, 
Exemption,  399;  New  Hampshire, 


796;  ownership  and  u.se,  796;  par- 
sonage, 796;  Pennsylvania  rule. 
798;  resulting  Ixiiefit.s,  798;  Sun- 
day .school  building,  798;  transfer 
tax,  798;  use  for  other  purjjoses, 
799,  851;  worship,  Hf)ston,  79*i; 
Young  Men's  Christian  A.s.«ocia- 
tion,  799;  use  of  church  dl-scon- 
tinued,  app«)rtionnieTit  of  tax,  866; 
Univer.salist  Church,  when  not 
exempt  from  suj)i)(>rtiiig  Congre- 
gational minister,  S()(>. 

Tax  Law,  u.se  <jf  church  building, 
elTect.  114. 

Tenet,  when  court  may  inquire  con- 
cerning, 145,  158. 

Temporalities,  defined,  117;  Civil 
Courts  may  prevent  diversion  of, 
144;  courts  will  protect,  163;  di- 
version, who  entitled  to  posses- 
sion, 274;  truster's  have  general 
charge  of,  .503;  trustees  chgrged 
with  care  of,  810,  816,  823. 

Tennessee  Annual  Conference,  be- 
quest to  invalid,  358. 

Territorial  Limitation,  note  on,  117. 

Texas,  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
title  to  property,  674;  religious 
toleration  in,  674;  revolution  and 
independence,  effect  on  Mexican 
titles,  688;  use  of  Bible  in  public 
schools  sustained,  717. 

Texas  General  Convention,  exclud- 
ing member  of,  37. 

Theological  Seminary,  Associate'Re- 
formed  Church,  New  York  and 
Princeton,  29. 

Thompson,  Charles  B.,  founder  of 
Jehovah  Presbytery  of  Zion, 
Preparation,  Iowa,  411. 

Toleration  (see  also  Religious  Tol- 
eration), of  Bapti-sts  in  England, 
32;  scope  of,  49,  50. 

Tomb,  rights  of  owner,  65;  grant 
for  repair  not  a  charitable  use, 
82. 

Tombstone,  title  of  owner,  66;  see 
Monument. 

Town,  settled  minister,  when  may 
maintain  action  for  salary,  12; 
bequest  for  rehginus  purposes,  72; 
rehgious  society  in,  status,  328; 
division  into  parsonages,  effect  on 
title  to  meeting  house,  436;  land 
held  for  parsonage,  note  on,  442; 
ministerial  land,  status,  468;  sup- 


i.\in:x 


!M' 


))()rt  of  public  worship,  Ml;  rc- 
cmirod  to  provide  placo  of  jjiiblic 
worship,  591;  ("onncctirut,  ccclc- 
siastical  afTairs,  S()0;  Maino,  paro- 
chial powers,  iSOl ;  Ma.'-sachusctis, 
parochial  [jowers,  SOl ;  New 
Hainpshiro,  gosjx'l  land,  SO'i; 
Now  Haiiipshirc,  i)arochial  pow- 
ers, 802.  ! 

Treasurer,  custjodian  of  coriiorate 
seal,  15;  C'hrii<iian  Science,  liabil- 
ity of  treasur(?r  for  funds  collected 
for  organ,  lO.Tj;  when  society  liable 
for  debt  contiacled  by  treasurer, 
fi03;  priest,  ffcneridly  is,  730; 
Koneral  duty;  S()3;  liability,  803; 
power  to  ht)rnjw  money,  804; 
liability  for  society  funds,  S4(i. 

Treaty  of  I^arLs,  1S98,  recognition 
of  Roman  Catholic  Church,  G7S; 
1703,  recognition  of  ancient  Cath- 
olic organizations,  084. 

Treaty  of  I'eace,  Knglaiid,  proiwrly 
of  British  subjects  protecttKl  bv, 
70. 

Tre.sjja.ss,  Shakens,  deacons  may 
nuiintain  action,  10;  aition  for 
digging  and  removing  coal,  17; 
when  society  caiuiot  maintain. 
17;  by  setthnl  minister.  17. 

Trinity  Chun-h.  New  ^'ork,  dosing 
St.  John's  ("hapel,  action  sus- 
tained, 141;  note  on.  :50l;  ch.u- 
ter,  5<)5. 

Trust,  when  may  not  be  impaired 
by  trustees,  7;  when  may  n(jt 
be  altered,  84;  for  support  of 
minister  sustained,  8(5;  Theo- 
logical (|uesti()ns  not  considered 
by  civil  courts,  101;  courts  will 
provcnl  perversion  of,  1()3;  when 
courts  will  ituiuire  into  reli- 
gious opinions,  1()5;  special  effect, 
541;  Protestant  I'lpiscojjal  Church, 
l)ishop  of  (leorgia,  note  on,  5(U'i; 
testator's  intention,  577;  when 
affected  bv  deviation  in  doctrine, 
580;  Hcformed  Dut'-h  Church, 
conveyance  sustained,  .")S0;  effect 
of  Knglish  toleration  act,  592; 
c.annot  be  diverted,  1)05;  when 
corporatirMi  may  execute,  014; 
sustained  :is  to  Uom.an  C.alholic 
unincorporated  society.  0.88;  se- 
ceilers  not  entitled  to  share  in 
funds,  700;  Shakers,  note  on,  72.3; 


library  for  study  of  Spiritualism, 
sustained,  730. 
Trast<H's,  when  not  liable  on  build- 
ing contract,  3;  may  be  sue<1  by 
cori)oration,  4;  constitute  cor- 
poration, 4;  c<jnveyance  to  them 
conveyance  to  society,  5;  when 
cannot  maintain  action  for  for- 
cible entry  and  detainer,  (>;  n<»t 
permit  t(Hl  to  imptiir  trust  in 
church  property,  7;  may  giv<'  note 
for  materials.  14;  President  and 
Secretary  cannot  give  valid  note 
without  authority,  14;  de  facto 
may  maintain  action  for  tn>si):Lss, 
10;  action  for  digging  ami  remov- 
ing coal,  17;  title  descrilx'd,  17; 
when  liable  on  contract,  17; 
managing  temporalities,  exclusive 
right  to  bring  action,  18;  when  no 
action  against  to  restrain  iLse  of 
instrumental  nuisic,  18;  de  facto, 
what  coast  it  utes,  18;  Illinois, 
must  sue  or  defend  for  society, 
18;  New  York,  must  sue  in  cor- 
porate name,  18;  restraining  un- 
lawful act,  18;  when  liable  to 
suit  by  membei-s,  19;  action  by, 
judgment  may  be  for  con)ora- 
tion,  19;  wlien  act  inn  m.ay  be  in 
name  of,  20;  must  show  title  to 
ofhce,  20;  unincori)orate<l  society, 
de  facto  may  maintain  action. 
20;  Baptist  (Jhurch,  control  of 
property,  37;  of  charity  mu>*t 
account,  90;  Christian  Church, 
part  of  corporation,  95;  deacons, 
(•x-oHicio,  Bantist  Church,  190; 
election,  burden  of  |)roof,  2I{4; 
election,  when  justice  may  call 
iiHM'ting  for,  235;  election  must 
be  regular,  238,  2.39;  no  action 
aft«'r  expiration  of  term,  240; 
members  interfering  with,  injunc- 
tion granted,  28(),  287;  lailhenin, 
relati(»n  to  church,  2.89;  Lu- 
theran, when  may  luit  Ix-  re- 
strained from  regulating  public 
worship,  302;  .Maryland,  title, 
mandamus  iirojMT  remetly  to  t«*st, 
.312;  cannot  l)e  evict<»«l  by  cor- 
|)orators,  342;  cannot  on  own 
motion  institute  [)r(M'e«"<iuitx  for 
s:ile  of  prop<'rty,'  34(i>^ille  in 
ollice  laiuxit  be  deliniun<-<l  by 
arbitration,  310;  \\|i<ii  m:i\    li.il<l 


:»is 


iMn:x 


I)r()|)('it y  ju-^  iiKainsI  corporiitioii, 
'.n\;  inorln.'mf  hy,  viilidity,  4IS; 
no  jurisdiction  of  (iiicslioii.s  rc- 
latiun  to  piil)li(;  worship,  422; 
condovcrsy  over  elect  ion  <i(M'H 
not  constitute  schism,  42S;  nuiy 
control  distribution  and  use  of 
pews,  448;  I'n^shyterian  (Jhurch, 
relation  to  call  of  minister,  499; 
Presbyterian  Church,  513;  con- 
trol of  property,  544;  cannot  act 
for  two  societies,  5G(),  001;  ciusl- 
ing  vote.  New  ^'ork  rule,  5()S; 
(juo  warranto,  only  remedy  to 
test  title  to  office,  574;  when  act 
not  binding  on  corporators,  602; 
making  jn'omissory  note,  when 
society  not  liable  on,  607;  no 
power  to  expel  member  of  so- 
ciety, 609;  must  meet  to  act,  611, 
615;  element  of  corporation.  ()13; 
general  f)owers,  614;  directors, 
archbishop  may  appoint,  658;  se- 
ceding, status,  706;  Shakers,  note 
on,  721,  722;  of  unincorporated 
society,  protected  by  court,  846; 
abandonment  of  offi(!e,  806;  ac- 
tions, de  facto,  806;  actions, 
Illinois  rule,  806;  actions,  pre- 
organization  contracts,  807;  ac- 
tion, trespass,  S07;  appointment 
by  coui't,  807;  appointment  by 
minister,  807;  borrowing  money, 
807;  building  committee,  808;  by 
laws,  808;  by  laws,  assessments 
on  pew  holders,  808;  closing 
church,  808;  control  of  property, 
808; conveyance,  809;  conveyance 
by,  when  required,  809;  corporate 
character,  Maryland  rule,  809; 
corporate  control  of,  809;  cov- 
enant of  waiTanty,  810;  de  facto, 
810;  diversion  of  property,  810; 
election,  811;  election,  burden  of 
jM'oof,  812;  election,  place,  812; 
employment  of  coimsel,  812; 
excluding  minister  from  church 
edifice,  812;  forcible  entry  and 
detainer,  812;  holding  over,  813; 
individual  liability,  SI 3;  joint  in- 
lerest,  814;  liability,  property 
sold  to  piustor,  814;  meeting,  duty 
to  attend,  814;  meeting  necessary, 
814;  mingling  charitable  and  other 
funds,  815;  minister's  emiilov- 
incut,    815;    occupj-ing    property 


after  termination  of  contnicf,  S15; 
official  term,  H16;  official  title 
must  })e  shown,  H16;  oust«T, 
efTe<t,  816;  possession  of  i)ro|)erty, 
SKi;  i)owers,  (leorgia  rule,  817; 
|)owers,  Maine  rule,  K17;  powers, 
New  York  rule,  817;  powers, 
Pennsylvania  rule,  81S;  presumj)- 
tiou  of  official  title,  SI 8;  |)rom- 
issnry  note,  818;  projH'rty,  trus- 
tees cannot  distribute,  819;  quo- 
rum, S19;  fiuo  warranto,  820;  re- 
ligious services,  820;  rc-moval,  820; 
rej)resentativ(!  character,  cannot 
act  in  two  capacities,  821;  repre- 
sentative character,  821;  Roman 
CathoUc,  how  chosen,  822;  seat- 
ing, power  to  regulate,  822; 
statas,  822;  statute  of  limitations 
cannot  be  waived,  823;  temporal- 
ities, 823;  title  to  office,  823;  title 
to  office,  necessary  to  maintain 
a(!tion,  823;  United  Brethren  in 
Christ,  how  appointed,  857. 
Trusts,  advow.son,  825;  archbishop, 
moral  frvLst,  825;  Auburn  Theo- 
logical Seminarv,  826;  beneficiary, 
how  determined,  826;  bishop,  826; 
cemeteries,  827;  charitable,  de- 
fined, 827;  church,  incapacitv, 
827;  Chri-stmas  presents,  827; 
church  hbrary,  Sunday  school, 
828;  corporate  capacity,  828; 
court  to  administer,  828;  dedica- 
tion of  land  for  religious  purposes, 
829;  denominational  limitation, 
829;  denominational  u.se,  830; 
discretion  of  trustees,  830;  diver- 
sion, 830;  donor's  intention,  831; 
equity  jurisdiction,  831;  for- 
eign, unincorporated  society,  832; 
fundus,  how  applied.  832;  home 
for  aged  persons,  833;  implied 
from  bequest  or  conveyance,  833; 
indefinifeness,  833;  IvCgislature 
cannot  modify,  834;  legislative 
power,  834;  limitation,  834;  Ma- 
rine Hible  Society,  835;  mis.-^ions, 
835;  object,  how  ascertainetl,  835; 
other  states.  836;  parol,  when 
insufficient,  836;  pai-sonage,  8.37; 
rhih|>s  Academy  Divinity  School, 
S37;  Poor  .Jewish  families,  837; 
poor  ministers.  S37;  Princeton 
Theological  Seminary.  S3S;  re- 
ligious   services,    838;    sectarian 


INDEX 


:»4:» 


purpose,  839;  Sunday  school,  840; 
suspending  power  of  alienation, 
840;  title,  840;  unineorporated 
society,  840;  Universalist  Church, 
842;  worship,  usage,  how  deter- 
mined, 842. 
Twenty-third  Psalm,  reciting  in 
school  does  not  constitute  public 
worship,  713. 

U 

Unincorporat(Hl  Society,  when  tras- 
tees  of  cannot  maintain  eject- 
ment, 6;  when  not  a  necessary 
party  to  an  action  on  a  building 
contract,  17;  when  cannot  sue 
nor  be  sued,  20;  when  members 
are  personally  liable,  20;  trustees, 
de  facto  may  maintain  action, 
20;  cannot  take  bequests,  22; 
devise  to  vestry  for  use  of  sus- 
tained, 81;  .such  bequests  valid 
in  IllinoLs,  81;  when  grant  of 
land  to,  valid — subsequent  incor- 
j)oration,  SI;  bequest  to,  when 
void,  90;  Christian  Church,  may 
take  and  hold  property,  9(i;  title 
to  property,  o44,  o(i7;  status, 
rights  of  property,  044;  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  trust  sustained, 
088;  Spiritualists,  bequest  invalid, 
730;  when  subscription  for  valid, 
740;  trustees  de  facto,  may  main- 
tain tresi)ass,  K(M3;  trust  for,  when 
valid,  841;  bequest  to,  void,  844; 
church  asse.'^sments,  844;  con- 
veyance to,  valid.  <S44;  incor[)()ra- 
tion,  effect,  <S4.'i;  incorporation, 
effect  on  title  to  land,  84.');  mem- 
bers, liabilit}",  H4.5;  projx'rtv,  how 
held,  840;  right  to  suej  840; 
Roman  Catholic,  846;  trustees, 
protected,  S40;  when  trustees 
may  be  compelled  to  execute 
conveyance,  S07. 

Unitarians,  chajx'!,  bequest  for 
sustained,  .S2;  hc(|uest  sustained, 
847,  803;  doctrines  and  wor.<hip, 
schi.sm,  847;  taxation,  8')1. 

I'nited  Haptist  Church,  formation 
of,  444. 

United  Hrellircn  in  (Christ,  revision 
of  const  it  111  ion  .•md  conft'-s-^ioti  of 
faith  subj(^ct  to  revi<'w  by  civil 
courts,  100;  .secession  from  local 
society,  ciTccI,  7(M);  amcmied  <-on- 


stitution  and  confession  of  faith, 
S.')2;  amending  coast  it  ut  ion,  1885- 
1880,  8.53;  Canada,  K.-»3;  division, 
855;  government,  S'^];  hi.story, 
850;  history  and  fonn  of  govern- 
ment, 800;  maioritv's  right,  801; 
Philomath  College,' 802. 

United  Kvangeli(;al  Church,  noted, 
24(i. 

United  Clerman  Lutheran  Churches 
of  New  York,  note  on,  305. 

United  CJreek  Church,  fliffers  from 
other  Creek  churches,  27S. 

Unite<l  Presbyterian  Church,  union 
with  Free  Church  of  Scotland, 
252;  note  on  origin  i>f,  .512;  organ- 
ization, SO-1;  minority's  right,  St'A. 

Uniteil  States,  religioiLs  fre<Hlom, 
025;  relation  to  lioman  Catholic 
Church,  009. 

Universalist,  minister,  Mas.sju'hu- 
setts,  limitation  of  action  for 
s:U:u-y,  10;  voluntarv  iusso«'iation, 
teacher  not  entitleil  to  share  in 
public  money,  (5.55;  bequest  for 
<stablishment  of  church,  sas- 
tained,  S42;  legacv  to  Herk.-^hire 
Society,  sustainetl,  S.S2;  action, 
how  to  be  brought,  S05;  becjUesL 
siLstained,  S()5;  general  conven- 
tion, 805;  pews,  by  laws,  805; 
stock,  subscription,  HiMi;  taxa- 
tion, 8(}0;  transfer  tax,  80(»;  trust 
sastained,  Htiti;  unincorixirali-*! 
society,  conveyance  dire<'ted,  SO"; 
competency  as  witnes.s<>s,  904. 

Ursuline  Cotnnumitv,  btniucjit  su.— 
tained.  ,S93. 

Utah,  Mormon  Church  charters, 
407. 


Vann,    Irving     1.,    .ludge,    (]Uote4l, 

(J03. 
Vault,    in    chiiniiyani.    use   of.    .59; 

title   of    purclia.ser    from    society. 

t>5;  bc(]uesl    for  repair,   void,   71; 

grant   for  repair  not   a  charitable 

use,  82. 
\'«'rmonl,     grant     of     proiwrly     of 

Society    for    Pro|)ag:iting    CohimI 

in    I'oreign    Parts,    void,    70;    Ix-- 

quesl   for  charil.'ible  u.ses,  invalid, 

SI;    has    no    religions    e.vtablivli- 

inenl,  2;{1. 
Vestry,  when  not  liabU-  on  builduig 


:»:.() 


IXDKX 


contract,  5j  inu.st  act  tus  a  body, 
5;  may  ratify  note  Kivcn  by  war- 
<l(>iis,  11;  may  receive  devise  for 
unincorporated  society,  81;  'i'rin- 
ity  Church,  (;losinn  St.  John's 
Chapel,  action  sustained,  141; 
when  civil  courts  maj'  not  inter- 
fere with,  l.W;  may  remove  dis- 
turber of  meetinfj;,  212;  when 
restrained  from  dismissing  minis- 
ter, 287;  may  call  minister,  when 
injunction  ai^;ainst  denied,  289; 
when  special  election  may  bo 
ordeied,  311;  mandamus  to  com- 
jx'l  attendance  at  meeting,  312; 
cannot  exclude  rector  from  pos- 
session and  control  of  (;hurch 
(>difice,  381,  386,  5G2;  when  may 
not  make  mortgage  without  bish- 
op's consent,  418;  may  take 
proceeding  for  sale  without  vote 
of  corporators,  539;  room  for  use 
of,  544;  control  of  guild  building, 
553;  cannot  remove  rector,  557; 
presiding  officer,  casting  vote, 
558;  cannot  act  without  meeting, 
567;  meeting,  quorum,  569;  as- 
signment of  pews,  569;  disturber 
may  be  removcni,  570;  promissory 
notes  by,  when  society  liable,  570; 
status,  572;  quo  warranto  projjer 
remedy  to  test  title  to  office,  574; 
constitute  corporation,  615. 

\'icar,  when  not  entitled  to  adjourn 
parish  meeting,  234. 

\'irginia,  church  cannot  be  incor- 
porated, 117;  Legislature  enter- 
tains charges  against  rector,  228; 
early  established  church,  570;  re- 
ligious freedom,  625. 

^'oters  (see  also  Elections,  and 
Meetings),  qualifications,  by-laws 
regulating,  234;  qualifications  in 
special  case,  238;  illegal,  when 
recejjtion  d()(>s  not  vitiate  elec- 
tion, 238;  right  cannot  be  recon- 
sidered aft  CI'  result  of  election 
declared,  240;  a.sses.sment,  868; 
contribution,  868;  Episcopalians 
at  congregational  meeting,  S(>9; 
qualifications,  how  tletermined, 
869;  qualifications,  how  fixed,  870; 
(qualifications  in  general,  870; 
stated  attendants,  872;  with- 
drawal, effect,  872;  women,  meet- 
ing for  incorporation,  872. 


W 

Waco  I'emale  Collegr-,  'IVxim,  elee- 
tion,  debt,  action  n'lating  to,  3(>4. 

W'alden,  John  .M.,  Hishoj),  consol- 
idation of  Methodist  Epi.scopal 
Churches  sustained.  142,  339,  342. 

Waller,  Alvin  1".,  Rev.,  Oregon, 
Methodist  Mi.s.sion  at  Wjuscopum, 
352. 

Ward,  religious  education,  281,  590; 
guardian  holds  oflice  of  trust,  623. 

Warfield  College,  i'roteslant  Epis- 
copal Church,  bequest  sustained, 
571. 

Wascopum  Indians,  Methodist  mis- 
sion to,  351,  352. 

Washington,  D.  C,  German  Society 
constituent  elements  of,  276. 

W  ayland,  Francis,  Rev.,  descrip- 
tion of  New  England  Baptist 
chiu-chcs,  37. 

\\'ebster's  International  Dictionary, 
quoted,  mass,  313. 

Welch  Circulating  Charity  Schools, 
bequest  sustained,  devise  invalid, 
887. 

Wesleyan  Methodist,  bequest  su.s- 
tained,  874;  Conference,  powei-s 
relating  to  the  trial  and  susi)en- 
sion  of  minister,  874;  histf)r>'. 
874;  member,  when  right  of 
action  lost,  875. 

^^esleyan  Methodist  Convention  of 
America,  organizations,  874. 

Weslev,  John,  founder  of  Method- 
ism,' 334. 

Western  New  York  Diocese,  trust 
for,  invalid,  572. 

Westminster  College,  Presbyterian 
Church,  note  on,  514. 

Westmiaster  Confession  of  I'aith, 
Cmnberland  ftcsbyterian  Chun'h 
dissents  from,  1!K);  tenet  (if  l'r(>c 
(liurch  of  Scotland.  253. 

West  \'irginia,  will,  when  foreign 
corporation  may  take  mui(T,  8(). 

Weyth,  establishes  mi.«;sion  to  In- 
dians on  Wallamet  River,  351. 

Whitman,  Dr.,  takes  charge  of 
Oregon  mission,  352,  353. 

\N  hitman,  Perrin  P.,  ha.s  charge  of 
On^gon  niLssion,  353. 

Wickliffe.  John,  relation  to  Prot- 
estant R(>fonnation,  545. 

Widows'  and  Orj)hans  Fund.  Prol- 


INDEX 


!».jI 


ppfant  Episcopal  Church,  bequest 
sustained,  572. 

Will,  bequest,  domicile  of  legatee  gov- 
erns validity,  22;  unincorporated 
society,  cannot  take  becjUf'st,  sub- 
sequent incoqjoration  d(X's  not  cure 
defect,  22;  9th  ward,  New  York, 
bequest  for  coal  to  inhabitants, 
350;  testator's  intention,  404; 
Aubiu-n  Theological  Seminary, 
876;  bishop  to  be  ai)iiointc(l,  S77; 
capacity  to  take,  .S77;  coiHlitional 
bequest,  877;  constitutional  lim- 
itation, 877;  oonveyance,  includes 
will,  878;  corporation,  bequest  by 
non-resident,  878;  dissolution  of 
society,  effect,  879;  foreign  bene- 
ficiary, 879;  foreign  society,  880; 
identifying  beneficiary,  880;  in- 
definiteness,  881;  intention,  884; 
legacy  forfeited  by  cluinge  of 
doctrine,  885;  legislative  sanction, 
885;  misdescription,  886;  parol 
evidence,  886;  periietuity,  886; 
(Quakers,  j'early  meeting,  void 
devise,  886;  religion,  advance- 
ment, 88(5;  reward  of  merit,  887; 
Sailors'  Home,  Boston,  Ma-^sa- 
chusetts,  887;  slavery  and  in- 
temperance, 888;  Sunday  school, 
888;  testator's  religious  opinions, 
888;  time  liinit,  888;  trustee,  will 
acknowledging  trust,  892;  undue 
influence,  892;  unincori)orated  so- 
ciety, 892;  I'nitarians,  893;  Ur- 
suline  Community,  893;  ^'oung 
Men's  C'hristian  Association,  893. 

William  the  Conqueror,  confirms 
early  canons  j)rohibitiiig  judicial 
proceedings  on  the  Sabbath,  759. 

Wilmington  Annual  Conference*, 
provision  for  education  of  min- 
isters for,  344. 

Window,  ornamental,  be(|Uest  for 
sustained,  71. 

^\  inebrennerians,  see  Church  of 
Cod  at   Harrisburg,  121. 

Winebrenner.  .John,  founder  of 
Church  of  God  at  Harrisburg,  124. 


Wirth,  Augustin,  member  of  Order 
of  St.  Benedict,  172;  action 
against  Order,  173. 

Wi.'-consin,  cfjiistitulion,  reading  Bi- 
ble in  school  a  vi(jlation  of,  45; 
will  sustained  requiring  Ic^gatc*-  to 
attend  church,  619;  swtarian  in- 
struction in  schools  prcjhibited, 
718. 

Witness,  Protestant  KpLseopal 
bi.sliop  competent  to  define  pari.'^h 
and  rector,  4s ;  Shakci-s,  com- 
petency as  witne.-^ses,  720;  atheist, 
895;  child,  895;  comjx'tency,  K97; 
immunity  from  exjimination,  •.KM); 
oath,  9<K);  jiartv,  religious  belief, 
9(X);  Quaker,  900;  religious  Ix- 
lief,  9(X);  Roman  Catholic,  oath 
how  administered,  iM)3;  I'niver- 
salist,  904. 

\\'oodstock  College,  be(|uest  sUi>- 
tained,  ti89. 

\\'orship.  See  Public  ^\  <)r.shi|),  and 
Religious  Worship. 

\N'orship,  Place  of.  See  Place  of 
AN'orshij). 

\\ylie.  Rev.  'riuwlore  \\ .  J., 
minister,  Reformed  I*re.sbylerian 
Cluu-ch,  587. 

^  oung,  Brigham,  Mormon  leader, 
413. 

^  oung  Men's  Christian  A.sscM-iation, 
not  exempt  from  Iran.'-fer  tax, 
616;  when  properly  subject  to 
taxation,  799;  betpiest  for  organ- 
ization sustained,  893;  auxiliary, 
905:  [jrojierty,  limitation,  905; 
taxation,  906." 

"\'oung  Women's  Christian  .\.ss(K'ia- 
tion,  descrilx-d,  cxemj)!  from  in- 
heritance tax,  616;  auxiliary  to 
Young  Men's  Christian  Associa- 
tion, 905. 

Z 

Zion  Church,  New  York,  formed 
from  Trinity  Church,  305. 

Zuiiiglius,  reliitioii  to  Protestant 
Reformation,  545. 


UNIVERSITY'  Ol   CAI.IIORMA,  LOS  ANGF.I.F.S 

Tin;  UNIVKRSITY  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  DUF  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


OCT  2  4  l-ii*PJ 

OlsdffMliE 
MAR  1  €  1981 

HECD  ItMJRD 

At»K  1  9  1!82 


Form  L-I) 
£.-,m-:.  •13(.-;...-.) 


TJ>;iVERSITY  of  CALIFORNIA 

AT 

LOS  ANGELES 


T  T-r>r»  A  v>\r 


BV 

762           Lincoln  - 

L63c          The   civil   law 

and  the  churdi 

DEMCO  2MN 

ncT  ^  4  ^^^^ 

3   1158  00654   2418 

UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACtLmr 


AA    001  285  336    2 


